fHfc 

UNIVERSITY  0>  CAlffORNIA,  SAN  W£60 
U  JdU.  CALIFORNIA 


PARATAXIS 

IN 
EARL.Y  LATIN 


BY 


AXEL  REYNOLD  WALLIN,  A.M. 


NEW  YORK 
1910 


BRARY 

i  Y  OF. 

•  I  I 

N  DIEGO 


PARATAXIS 


IN 


EARLY  LATIN 


BY 


AXEL  REYNOLD   WAIXIN,  A.M, 


NEW  YORK 
1910 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

Preface 5 

Introduction 9 

Chapter  I.          Final  Substantive  Clauses 15 

,,         II.        Consecutive  Substantive  Clauses 20 

,,         III.      Indirect  Question 24 

IV.  Indirect  Discourse 26 

V.  Final  Adverbial  Clauses 32 

, ,         VI.       Consecutive  Adverbial  Clauses 35 

,,         VII.     Causal  Adverbial  Clauses 37 

VIII.  Temporal  Adverbial  Clauses 40 

IX.  Conditional  Adverbial  Clauses 41 

X.  Concessive  Adverbial  Clauses <. 45 

,,         XL      Relative  and  Comparative  Clauses 47 

XII.    Conclusion  .  .50 


PEEFACE. 

The  theory  that  hypotaxis  has  developed  from  parataxis,  was  first 
set  forth  by  F.  W.  Thiersch  in  his  Greek  Grammar  (Edinburg,  1831). 
This  theory  was  again  discussed  by  Hermann  in  1850. 1)  During 
the  second  half  of  the  century  the  subject  was  studied  by  a  large 
number  of  syntactists.  Holtze,  in  his  Syntaxis  Priscorum  Scriptorum 
Latinorum,  (Leipzig,  1861 — 62),  gave  a  new  impetus  to  the  study 
by  his  large  collection  of  paratactic  sentences  from  early  Latin  writers. 
This  study  was  continued  by  Kiihner  in  his  Ausfurliche  Grammatik, 
(Hanover,  Halm,  1877 — 79),  and  by  Draeger  in  his  Historische 
Syntax  der  lateinischen  Sprache,  (Leipzig,  2d  ed.,  1881). 

More  careful  collections  of  paratactic  material  were  made  in  the 
eighties  by  Weissenhorn, 2)  Weninger, 3)  and  Becker,4)  and,  a  little 
later,  by  Lindskog.  5)  These  scholars,  however,  did  not  exhaust  the 
subject.  They  either  confined  themselves  to  the  classification  of 
paratactic  sentences  in  Plautus  or  Terence,  or,  when  the  field  from 
which  they  drew  their  illustrations  was  wider,  treated  only  a  limited 
portion  of  the  subject.  The  work  of  Becker  was  the  most  ambitious 
of  them  all.  The  aim  was  to  embrace  within  one  compass  all  sen- 
tences in  the  ancient  Eoman  dramatic  writers,  which  could  be  classed 
as  paratactic.  This  work  was,  however,  never  completed.  Only  the 
first  part,  treating  one  class  of  substantive  clauses,  appeared.  The 
discussion  of  Claes  Lindskog,  which  appeared  in  1896,  covers  prac- 
tically the  same  field,  though  it  differs  in  arrangement,  and  in  giving 
more  attention  to  origins. 

Numerous  discussions,  in  addition  to  the  above,  are  found  in 
current  periodicals  and  grammatical  works  both  on  the  general  sub- 
ject of  parataxis  and  on  particular  phases  of  the  same.  No  work 
has,  however,  appeared,  so  far  as  the  present  writer  is  aware,  which 
covers  the  whole  field  of  parataxis.  Neither  do  the  following  pages 
aim  to  exhaust  the  subject.  The  main  object  will  be  to  present  to 
view  the  whole  field  of  parataxis  as  it  is  illustrated  by  the  various 

1)  Hermann,  C.  Fr.,  De  protaxi  paratactica,  (Gottingen,  1850). 

2)  Weissenhorn,  J.  B.,  Parataxis  Plautina,    (Burghausen,   1884). 

3)  Weninger,  A.,  De  Parataxis  in  Terenti  fabulis  vestiffiis,  (Erlangen, 
1888). 

4)  Becker.    Ed.,   Beiordnende   und  unterordnende   Satzverbindung   bei 
den  altromischen  Biihnendichtern,   (Metz,  1888). 

5)  Ljndskog,  Claes,  Quaestiones  de  parataxi  et  hypotaxi  apud  priscos 
Latinos,    (Lund,  1896). 


6 

kinds  of  paratactic  sentences  found  in  early  Roman  writers  down  to 
the  time  of  Lucilius,  or  about  100  B.  C. 

The  present  writer  naturally  owes  much  to  his  predecessors  both 
for  suggestions  which  have  helped  him  in  the  determination  of 
paratactic  sentences  and  for  methods  of  arrangement  and  discussion. 
The  sentences  used  for  illustration  are,  however,  mainly  from  his 
own  collection.  The  text  is,  on  the  whole,  that  given  in  the  following 
editions,  but  changes  in  punctuation  have  been  made  where  this  has 
seemed  necessary. 

Ribbeck,  0.,  Scaenicae  Romanorum  Poesis  Fragmenta,  2  vols.,  (Leip- 
zig, 1897—98). 

Keil,  EL,  M.  Porci  Catonis  De  Agri  Cultura,   (Leipzig,  1895). 

Goetz,  G.,  and  Schoell,  F.,  T.  Macci  Plauti  Comoediae,  (Leipzig, 
1902—06). 

Fleckeisen,  A.,  P.  Terenti  Afri  Comoediae,  (Leipzig,  1901). 

Marx,  F.,  C.  Lucili  Carminum  Reliquiae,  (Leipzig,  1904). 

Corpus  Iiiscriptionum  Latinarum,  vol.  I. 

The  following  are  the  more  important  works  and  articles  that  have 
been  used  for  reference.  They  are  arranged  chronologically. 

Jolly,  J.,  Ueber  die  Einfachste  Form  der  Hypotaxis,  Curtius  Studien. 

VI.,   (1873),  pp.  215—246. 
Wolfflin,     E.,    Bemerkungen    uber    das     Vulgdrlatein,     Philologus, 

XXXIV.,  (1875),  pp.  137—165. 
Schnoor,  H.,  Quaestiones  Plautinae,  (Kiel,  1875). 
Kiihner,    R.,  Ausfiihrliche    Grammatik    der    Lateinischen    Sprache, 

(Hanover,  Hahn,  1877—79),  esp.  vol.  II.,  pp.  213  if. 
Jordan,    H.,    Kritische    Beitrage    zur    Geschichte    der    Lateinischen 
-  Sprache,  (Berlin,  1879). 
Draeger,  P.,  Historische  Syntax  der  lat.  Sprache,   (Leipzig,  2d  ed., 

1881),  vol.  II.,  pp.  213  ff. 
Rebling,  0.,   Versuch  einer  Charakteristik  der  romischen  Umgangs- 

sprache,   (Kiel,  1882). 

Abel,  Carl,  Linguistic  Essays,  (London,  1882),  pp.  160  ff. 
Gildersleeve,  B.  L.,  A.  J.  P.,  vol.  IV.,   (1883),  pp.  419—420. 
Probst,  Arthur,  Beitrage  zur  lateinischen  Grammatik, (Leipzig,  1883). 
Weissenhorn,  J.  B.,  Parataxis  Plautina,  (Burghausen,  1884). 
Ballas,  E.,  Grammatica  Plautina,   (Berlin,  1884). 
Techmer,  F.,  Sprachentwickelung,  Spracherlernung,   Sprachbildung, 

Internat.  Zeitschrift  f.  algem.   Sprachw.,  vol.   II.,   pp.    141 — 192, 

(Leipzig,  1885). 


Ostendorf,  A.,  Zum  Gebrauch  von  ut  bei  Plautus,  Vierzehnter  Jahres- 

bericht,  Progr.  Nu.  264,    (Neumiinster,   1885). 
Brugman,  0.,   Ueber  den  Gebr.  d.  condicionalen  NI  in  d.  alt.  Lat., 

(Leipzig,  1887). 
Becker,  Ed.,  Beiordnende  und  unterordnende  Satzverbindung  bei  den 

altrom.  Biihnendicht.,    (Metz,  1888). 

Eoby,  H.  J.,  Latin  Grammar,  vol.  II.,  5th  ed.,   (London,  1888). 
Kern,  Franz,  Die  deutsche  Skrtzlehre,  Berlin,  1888). 
Tylor,  E.  B.,  Anthropology,  (London,  1888),  and  Primitive  Culture, 

(New  York,  1889). 
Weninger,  A.,  De  Parataxis  in  Terenti  fabulis  vestigiis,   (Erlangen, 

1888). 
Morris,  E.  P.,  On  the  Sentence  Question  in  Plautus  and  Terence, 

A.  J.  P.,  X.,  (1889),  p.  397. 

Onions,  J.  H.,  Classical  Review,  III.,  (1889),  p.  249. 
Morris,  E.  P.,  A.  J.  P.,  XL,  (1890),  pp.  16—145. 
Strong,  H.  A.,  Introduction  to  the  study  of  the  History  of  Language, 

(London,  1891). 

Miiller,  Max.  F.,  The  Science  of  Language,  (New  York,  1891). 
Hentze,  K.  Die  Parataxis  bei  Homer,  (Gb'ttingen,  1888 — 91). 
Miles,  E.  H.,  Comparative  Syntax  of  Latin  and  Greek,  (Cambridge, 

1893). 
Gildersleeve,  B.  L.,  and  Lodge,   G.,  Latin  Grammars,    (New  York, 

1894  and  1898). 

Ries,  J.,  Was  ist  Syntax?    (Marburg,  1894),  pp.  150  ff. 
Elmer,  H.  C.,  A.  J.  P.,  XV.,  (1894),  p.  2, 

Lindsay,  W.  M.,  The  Latin  Language,  (Oxford,  1894),  pp.  598  ff. 
Lindskog,  Claes,  De  enuntiatis  apud  Plautum  condicionalibus,  (Lund, 

1895). 

Ueber  die  sogenant.  Attractio  inversa  im  Latcinischen,  Eranos, 

L,  (1896),  p.  48. 

Beitrdge  zur  GescJiichte  der  Satzstcllung  im  Latein,(Ij\md,  1896). 
Zur  Erkldrung  der  Ace.  mit  inf.  Constr.  im  Lat.,  Eranos,  !.„ 

(1896),  p.  121. 
Quaestiones  de  parataxi  et  hypotaxi  apud  priscos  Latinos,  (Lund, 

1896). 
Morris,  E.  P.,  The  Subjunctive  in  Independent  Sentences  in  Plautus. 

A.  J.  P.,  XVIII.,  (1897),  pp.  133  ff. 

Ashmore,  S.  G.,  Trans.  Am.  Phil.  Assoc.,  XXVIIL,  (1897),  p.  viii. 
Paul,  PL,  Principien  der  Sprachgcschichte,  3  aufl.,  (Halle,  1898). 
Bennett,  C.  E.,  Critique  of  some  Recent  Subjunctive  Theories,  Cornell 

Studies  in  Cl.  Phil.  IX.,  (1898),  espec.  pp.  66  ff. 


8 

Lane,  G.  M.,  and  Morgan,  M.  H.,  Latin  Grammar,  (New  York,  1898 

and  1903). 

Schmalz,  J.  H.,  Lateinische  Syntax,  (Miinchen,  1900),  pp.  341  ff. 
Sweet,  H.,  History  of  Language,  (London,  1900). 
Eiemann,  0.,  La  Syntaxe  Latine,  4th  ed.,  (Paris,  1900). 
Wundt,  W.,  Die  Sprache,  (Leipzig,  1900),  vol.  II.,  pp.  326  ff. 
Sjogren,  H.,  De  particulis  copulativis  apud  Plautum  et  Terentium, 

(Uppsala,  1900). 
Durham,  C.  L.,  Subjunctive  Substantive  Clauses  in  Plautus,  Corn. 

Stud.,  XIII.,    (1901). 
Morris,  E.  P.,  Principles  and  Methods  in  Latin  Syntax,  (New  York, 

1901),  espec.  pp.  113  ff. 
Miiller,  F.  Max.,  Last  Essays,  (London  and  New  York,  1901),  vol. 

XVII.,  pp.  63  ff.,  et  al. 
Delbriich,  B.,  Grundfragen  der  Sprachforschung,  mit  Riicksicht  auf 

Wundts   Sprachpsychologie   erortet,    (Strassburg,    1901). 
Nutting,  H.  C.,  Trans.  Am.  Phil.  Assoc.,  XXXIII.,  (1901),  p.  cv. 
Gildersleeve,  B.  L.,  Problems  in  Greek  Syntax,  A.  J.  P.,  XXIII., 

(1902),  p.  253. 

Sidgewick,  A.,  Relative  Parataxis,  Cl.  Kev.  XVII.,  (1903),  p.  402. 
Nutting,  H.  C.,  Modes  of  Conditional  Thought,  A.  J.  P.,  XXIV., 

(1903),  pp.  25  ff. 

Hale,  W.  G.,  and  Buck,  C.  D.,  .4  Latin  Grammar,  (Boston,  1903). 
Allen,  J.  H.,  and  Greenough,  J.  B.,  New  Latin  Grammar,  (Boston, 

1904). 
Gaffiot,    Felix,   Le   subjonctif   de   subordination    en  Latein,    (Paris, 

1906). 

Bennett,  C.  E.,  The  Latin  Language,  (Boston,  1907). 
Lindsay,  W.  M.,  Syntax  of  Plautus,  (Oxford,  1907),  espec.  pp.  52  ff. 


INTRODUCTION. 

Unfortunately  there  exists  as  yet  no  universally  accepted  definition 
of  parataxis.  It  is,  therefore,  necessary  at  the  outset  to  gain  a  clear 
understanding  of  what  sentences  are  to  be  included  under  this  term. 
The  kind  of  sentence-structure  to  which  it  should  be  applied  will, 
perhaps,  best  be  seen  after  a  few  general  remarks  on  the  development 
of  language  have  been  made. 

The  human  mind  is  the  ultimate  source  of  all  language  Without 
thought  no  language  is  possible.  Human  thought  finds  its  means  of 
expression  in  words  which  are  the  instruments  by  which  one  man 
communicates  his  thoughts  to  another,  l)  These  instruments  are 
signs,  either  visible  or  audible,  and  were  invented  to  represent  the 
thought  elements  that  were  to  be  communicated. 

In  primitive  man  these  thought  elements  were  very  simple.  Lan- 
guage must,  consequently,  have  been  very  simple,  for  a  creation  of 
the  human  mind  always  exhibits  the  limitations  of  the  latter.  Lan- 
guage, however,  reacted  on  the  mind.  The  power  of  the  brain  and 
its  capacity  for  thought  were  increased,  so  soon  as  language  came  into 
use.  Order  was  gradually  brought  into  the  chaos  of  the  mind,  and 
man  became  able  to  correlate  and  classify.  And  thus  spoken  language, 
which  at  first  consisted  of  isolated  vocal  utterances,  gradually  evolved 
the  simple  sentence. 

But  this  simple  sentence  was  not  long  used  alone,  for  nothing 
hindered  primitive  man  from  forming  a  number  of  related  concepts 
and  from  expressing  them  by  an  equal  number  of  successive  simple 
sentences  or  propositions.2)  Two  or  more  of  these  simple  sentences 
would,  therefore,  be  joined  to  express  thoughts  that  were  related. 
All  sentences  thus  joined  may  be  .called  compound  irrespective  of  the 
nature  of  this  relation. 

Of  these  compound  sentences  two  distinct  groups  must  be  recog- 
nized. In  the  one  group,  which  may  be  termed  coordinate,  the  simple 
sentences  were  merely  placed  side  by  side  without  the  thought  in  the 
several  propositions  being  thereby  modified.  The  relation  between 
propositions  in  coordinate  sentences  is,  accordingly,  not  that  of  inter- 

1)  Cf.    Miiller,    F.    Max..    On    Thought   and   Language,    Last    Essays, 
Vol.  XVII..  pp.  85  ff. 

2)  The  term  propositions  will  at  times  be  used,  in  this  dissertation, 
synonymously  with  simple  sentences.     The  term  clause  Is  used  to  denote 
a  proposition  which  is  dependent  or  sutx>rdinate  to  a  principal  proposition. 


10 

dependence,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  of  a  character  similar  to  the 
relation  of  successive  thoughts.  The  multitudinous  kinds  of  connec- 
tions, which  we  can  conceive  as  existing  between  successive  thoughts, 
can  therefore  also  be  conceived  as  existing  between  these  propositions. 
The  relation  may  be  that  of  coexistence,  succession,  contrast,  contra- 
diction, etc.  1 )  Thus  in  Most.  3,  Venit  imber,  lavit  parietes,  per- 
plvont,  the  relation  is  manifestly  that  of  succession.2) 

The  compound  sentences  of  the  second  group  may  be  called  com- 
plex. The  propositions  are  here,  so  to  speak,  woven  together.  Their 
relation  is  that  of  parts  to  a  whole.  The  complex  sentence  contained 
a  principal  proposition  and  one  or  more  dependent  propositions  or 
clauses  which  may  be  termed  subordinate. 

The  relation  between  the  simple  sentences  placed  in  juxtaposition 
was  then,  according  to  the  belief  of  the  present  writer,  either  co- 
ordinate or  complex.  Some  writers  on  Parataxis 3)  have,  however, 
doubted  that  these  relations  existed  from  the  beginning,  and  have 
held  that  the  simple  sentences  remained  independent  in  thought  as 
well  as  arrangement.  Others4)  grant  that  the  coordinate  relation 
existed,  but  insist  that  the  complex  relation  is  a  later  development. 
The  absurdity  of  the  first  mentioned  theory,  that  continuous  state- 
ments in  connected  discourse  can  be  absolutely  independent,  has  been 
clearly  shown  by  later  syntactists,  especially  by  KiesS)  and  Morris.6) 
In  fact,  all  contiguous  statements  are  related  in  some  way.7)  This 
relation  which  was,  in  the  first  place,  indicated  by  the  sequence  of 
the  simple  sentences,  could,  undoubtedly,  also  be  quite  clearly  indi- 
cated in  spoken  language  by  gestures  and  by  what  has  been  termed 
"musical  means",  namely,  pauses,  accentuation,  rhythm,  and  pitch.8) 

It  is,  of  course,  probable  that  primitive  man  did  not  at  once  analyze 
these  coordinate  and  complex  sentences  which  he  had  formed.  But 
if  lie  did  not  feel  that  one  sentence  was  coordinate  and  another  com- 
plex, we  have  nevertheless  no  right  to  say  that  these  relations  did 
not  exist.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  the  belief  of  the  present  writer,  that 
we  must  concede  the  existence  of  the  complex  relation  from  the 
beginning.  This  theory  does  not  invalidate  the  commonly  accepted 
belief  that  complex  sentences  were  a  result  of  successive  utterances 
of  simple  sentences  containing  independent  indicatives,  subjunctives, 

1)  Cf.  James,  W.,  Psychology.     (New  York,  1904),  p.  253  f. 

2)  For  other  examples  see  p.  39.  note  2. 

3)  See  Schmalz,  Lat.  Synt.,  §265;  Kern,  Die  deutsche  Satzlehrc;  Reis, 
Was  ist  Syntax?    Anmerk.  30,  et  al. 

4)  E.  g.  Bennett,  Corn.  Stud.,  vol.  IX.,  pp.  66  ff.,  and  Lat.  Language, 
p.  223;  and  Durham,  Corn.  Stud.,  vol.  XIII. 

5)  Ries.  Was  ist  Syntax  f  pp.  31  ff.  et  al. 

6)  Morris,  Lat.  Synt.,  pp.  36  ff..  and  pp.  115  ff. 

7)  See  Strong,  Introd.  to  the  Study  of  Lang.,  pp.  121  ff. 

8)  Cf.  Ries,  1.  c.f  p.  32. 


11 

or  imperatives.  The  purpose  for  which  these  simple  sentences  came 
to  be  used  in  sequence,  must  have  been  to  give  expression  not  only 
to  coordinate  thoughts,  but  also  to  thoughts  that  were  mutually  de- 
pendent. It  is  inconceivable,  for  instance,  that  a  speaker  would  say, 
eum  moneo :  abeat,  "I  advise  him :  let  him  go  away"-,  without  meaning 
that  the  thought  expressed  by  abeat  constitutes  his  advice.  It  is, 
of  course,  true  that  in  a  great  number  of  the  paratactic  sentences  found 
in  the  following  pages,  the  complex  relation  is  not  so  easily  seen  as 
in  the  sentence  just  quoted.  But  this  is  due  to  the  fact  that  many 
of  these  sentences  have  been  taken  from  the  fragmentary  remains  of 
the  dramatic  poets,  where  the  lack  of  connection  of  thought  often 
makes  it  impossible  to  determine  the  nature  of  the  relation;  or, — 
in  the  case  of  examples  from  Plautus  and  Terence  as  well — ,  to  the 
fact  that  we  have  no  means  of  discovering  with  what  gestures  and 
voice-modulation  speech  was  accompanied.  Even  if  we  did  know  this, 
we  would  still  be  in  doubt,  if  we  did  not  know  just  what  was  the 
conventional  gesture  and  modulation  of  voice  which  would  indicate 
to  the  listener  whether  the  subordinate  thought  was  to  be  taken  as  a 
condition,  concession,  cause,  etc.  1 ) 

From  what  already  has  been  said  it  is  evident  that  there  is  a  dif- 
ference between  the  inherent  psychological  relation  of  two  or  more 
contiguous  propositions  and  the  linguistic  expression  of  the  same. 
The  relation  may  be  merely  indicated  by  gestures,  quality  of  voice, 
attendant  circumstances,  or  even  by  a  word,  i.  e.  an  adverb  or  a 
pronoun,2)  or  it  may  be  clearly  expressed  by  the  form  of  the  lan- 
guage itself.  The  former  was,  undoubtedly,  the  earlier  method  of 
indicating  the  relation  of  sentences,  and  was  a  method  still  in  use 
when  language  was  first  committed  to  writing.  In  the  early  Latin 
writers  we  still  find  numerous  examples  of  both  coordinate  and  com- 
plex sentences  in  which  the  relation  between  the  simple  sentences  is 
not  at  all  indicated  by  the  written  language.  Side  by  side  with  these, 
however,  are  found  other  coordinate  and  complex  sentences  in  which 
the  coordinate  or  complex  relation  is  more  or  less  clearly  expressed  by 
the  form  of  the  language. 

In  the  present  dissertation  it  is  not  the  intention  of  the  writer  to 
deal  with  all  the  classes  of  sentence-structure  described  above.  Co- 
ordinate sentences  are  entirely  aside  from  this  discussion.  Of  complex 
sentences  we  shall  deal  with  only  those  in  which  the  complex  relation 
is  either  not  at  all  or  only  slightly  indicated  by  the  language.  These 
sentences  are  by  the  present  writer  included  under  the  term  parataxis, 
while  the  term  hypotaxis  is  applied  to  complex  sentences  in  which 

1)  Cf.  pp.  40  ff.,  37  ff.,  and  pp.  45  f. 

2)  Cf.  pp.  50  f. 


12 

the  relation  of  the  propositions  to  each  other  is  expressed  by  a  sub- 
ordinate conjunction  or  a  relative  pronoun.  The  following  classifica- 
tion will  show  the  position  which  parataxis  holds  relative-  to  other 
compound  sentences. 

1.  COORDINATE  SENTENCES. 

a.  The  coordinate  relation  is  not  indicated  by  the  language, 
e.  g.,  Most.  49,  Tu  fortunatus,  ego  miser:  patiunda  sunt. 
( Asyndetic  Coordination ) . 

b.  The  coordinate  relation  is  indicated  by  the  language,  e.  g., 
Asin.  543,  Intro  obi:  nam  te  quidem  edepol  nil  est  inpu- 
dentius.     (Syndetic  Coordination). 

2.  COMPLEX  SENTENCES. 

a.  The  complex  relation  is  a)   either  not  at  all,  ft}    or  only 
slightly  indicated  by  the  language,  i.  e.  by  an  adverb  or 
a  demonstrative  pronoun,1)   e.  g.,  a)   Phorm.  265,  unum 
cognoris,  omnis  noris;  (3)   Andr.  937,  vix  sum  apud  me: 
ita  animus  commotust  metu.      (Parataxis). 

b.  The  complex  relation  is  indicated  by  a)   subordinate  con- 
junctions or  /?)  relative  pronouns,  e.  g.,  a)  Asin.  654,  Has 
ego  si  vis  tibi  dabo;  /8)   Asm.  877,  Nil  ecastor  est  quod 
facer  e  mavelim.     (Hypotaxis). 

There  is  no  psychological  difference  between  the  two  classes  of  co- 
ordinate sentences  described  above.  The  difference  between  them  is 
grammatical.  At  first  one  simple  statement  was  merely  added  to  an- 
other, and  the  coordinate  relation  was  sufficiently  indicated  by  the 
juxtaposition.  As  the  language  developed,  however,  it  became  desir- 
able to  emphasize  this  relation,  and  the  sense  of  unity  found  expres- 
sion in  coordinate  conjunctions.  As  in  the  case  of  the  coordinate 
sentences,  so  also  do  the  complex  sentences,  above  mentioned,  exhibit 
the  same  psychological  relation.  These  sentences  differ  only  in  the 
way  the  complex  relation  is  indicated. 

It  is  the  writer's  intention,  as  was  stated  above,  to  discuss  the  kinds 
of  sentence  structure  which  fall  under  the  first  class  of  complex 
sentences.  By  parataxis,  therefore,  is  here  understood  that  juxta- 
position of  two  simple  sentences,  of  which  one  is  subordinate  in 
thought  to  the  other,  though  this  subordination  is  either  not  at  all 
or  only  slightly  indicated  by  the  written  language.  There  is,  of 
course,  nothing  in  the  etymological  meaning  of  the  term,  parataxis, 
which  would  hinder  us  from  applying  it  also  to  asyndetic  sentences. 
The  term  has,  however,  by  almost  universal  consent  of  the  foremost 
1)  See  chap.  XII.,  pp.  50  f. 


13 

writers  on  parataxis1)  been  limited  to  the  class  of  sentences  just 
described,  and  it  is  desirable  that  it  should  be  so  fixed.  Two  terms 
are  needed,  one  for  the  juxtaposition  of  simple  coordinate  sentences, 
(Asyndeton),  and  one  for  the  juxtaposition  of  simple  sentences  of 
which  one  is  subordinate,  (Parataxis). 

It  has  already  been  intimated  that  the  complex  relation  in  paratactic 
sentences  is  not  indicated  in  any  one  definite  way.  From  the  most 
primitive  form  of  parataxis  there  is,  on  the  other  hand,  a  steady 
progression  toward  clearness  in  the  expression  of  relations.  It  is 
with  this  in  view  that  Morris2)  defines  parataxis:  "It  covers  all  that 
lies  between  coordination  and  the  suggestion  of  relation  by  musical 
means  as  the  upper  limit,  and  the  expression  of  relation  by  subor- 
dinating words  as  the  lower  limit."  Near  the  upper  limit  are  in- 
cluded a  large  number  of  sentences  which  partake  of  the  nature  of 
asyndeton.  That  is,  it  is  often  impossible  to  determine  whether  the 
thought  is  complex  or  coordinated.3)  Similarly  it  is  also  often 
difficult  to  determine  whether  sentences  are  to  be  classed  as  paratactic 
or  hypotactic.  This  is  especially  true  in  cases  where  the  original 
meaning  of  the  subordinate  conjunctions  is  still  seen.4) 

Kiihner  distinguished  two  kinds  of  parataxis,  the  natural  and  the 
rhetorical.  He  says,5)  "Wir  miissen  in  dem  Gebrauche  der  Para- 
taxis zwei  Arten  wohl  unterscheiden :  die  natiirliche  und  die  kiinst- 
liche  oder  rhetorische.  Die  natiirliche  geht  aus  einer  Bequemlichkeit 
oder  Nachlassigkeit  in  Denken  hervor.  Und  das  ist  die  wahre  Para- 
taxe.  Die  kiinstliche  oder  rhetorische  Parataxe  hingegen  wird  ab- 
sichtlich  angewendet  um  der  Eede  grosseres  Gewicht  zu  geben."  But 
there  is  no  need  of  postulating  a  category  of  rhetorical  paratactic 
sentences.  Most  of  the  paratactic  sentences  found  in  later  writers, 
though  at  times,  no  doubt,  used  for  rhetorical  purposes,  are  only 
reminiscences  of  the  early  paratactic  structure  of  language.6)  Many 
expressions  of  this  kind  became  by  frequent  use  mere  idioms,7)  and 
thus  could  not  have  been  employed  to  lend  weight  to  the  language.8) 

It  is  evident  that  a  discussion  of  paratactic  clauses  may  be  based 
either  on  the  form  of  the  sentence,  i.  e.  the  relative  clearness  with 
which  subordination  is  suggested  by  musical  means,  a  pronoun,  an 

1)  Weissenhorn,  Becker,   Lindskog,  Morris,  Sjogren  and  others. 

2)  Morris,  Lat.  Synt.,  p.  147. 

3'  Of.  ch.  VII.,  p.  39,  note  2.  and  eh.  XII.,  pp.  51  f. 

4)  Cf.  pp.  46  f.  and  pp.  54  f. 

5)  Ausfiihr.  Gram.  p.  757. 

6)  For  illustrations  of  paratactic  sentences  in  later  writers  cf.  KUhner's 
Grammar,  pp.  757  ff.,  and  Lane's  Grammar,  pp.  285  ff. 

7)  Cf.  Lindskog,  Quaest.,  p.  37. 

8)  Cf.  Draeger,  Hist.  Synt..  II,  p.  206,  §366;  and  Becker,  Beiordn.  u. 
Unterordn.  Satzverb.,  p.  2. 


14 

adverb,  etc.,  or  on  the  nature  of  the  subordination,  i.  e.  causal,  con- 
ditional, temporal,  etc.  Both  of  these  methods  have  their  advantages 
and  disadvantages.  A  formal  classification  is  valuable,  as  it  reveals 
the  steps  in  the  development  of  the  complex  sentence,  but  the  almost 
endless  divisions  and  subdivisions  that  it  necessitates,  is  not  in  favor 
of  clearness.  A  functional  classification  sets  forth  the  varied  rela- 
tions which  the  subordinate  clause  holds  to  the  principal.  It  is  the 
more  tangible,  though  it  is  often  difficult  to  determine  the  nature 
of  the  subordination. 1 )  Most  writers  in  treating  the  subject  have 
disregarded  the  form  of  the  sentence,  and  have  classified  the  para- 
tactic  sentences  on  a  purely  functional  basis.  The  advantage  gained 
in  clearness  because  of  the  natural  tendency  of  the  mind  to  seek  to 
establish  the  character  of  the  relation  between  the  subordinate  and 
the  principal  clause,  makes  it  desirable  to  employ  a  functional  classi- 
fication. But  the  form  need  not  therefore  be  neglected.  The  aim 
will  be  to  include  both  in  the  following  pages.  The  function  will 
constitute  the  basis  of  division  into  chapters.  In  the  discussion  in 
each  chapter  the  development  of  each  form  of  sentence  will  be  touched 
upon.  The  discussion  will  finally  be  summed  up  in  the  last  chapter 
where  the  formal  difference  will  be  more  clearly  pointed  out. 

1)   Cf.  Morris,  Lat.  Synt.,  pp.  31  ff.,  and  p.  114. 


PART  I. 

SUBSTANTIVE    CLAUSES. 

In  the  early  language  two  simple  sentences,  one  of  which  served  the 
function  of  subject  or  object  of  the  verb  in  the  principal  proposition, 
were  often  arranged  paratactically.  The  subordinate  clause  contained 
the  main  statement,  i.  e.  a  wish,  a  question  or  an  assertion.  The 
examples  that  have  been  collected,  may  be  arranged  as  follows,  Final, 
Consecutive,  Indirect  Question,  and  Indirect  Discourse. 

CHAPTEE  I. 

FINAL  SUBSTANTIVE  CLAUSES. 

Clauses  of  this  kind  are  introduced  by  specific  words,  viz.,  volo,  malo, 
nolo,  quaeso,  caveo,  obsecro,  sino,  licet,  amabo,  rogo,  oro,  cedo,  oportet, 
iiibeo,  euro,  metuo,  etc.  First  will  be  given  a  few  of  the  many  ex- 
amples collected,  after  which  a  discussion  of  the  most  important 
principles  of  parataxis  which  they  illustrate  will  follow. 

volo. 

Naev.  Coroll.  II,  37  E.    diu  vivat:  volo. 
Capt.  858.     vin  te  faciam  fortunatum? 
Capt.  360.    vin  vocem  hue  ad  te? 
Most.  1074.    nunc  ego  ille  hue  veniat  velim. 

Eud.  662.  .  Nimis  velim:  improbissumo  homini  malas  edentaverint. 
Eud.  877.     Verum  sit:  velim. 
Andr.  418.    Hodie  uxorem  ducas:  -  -  volo. 

Heaut.  162.    Apud  me  sis:  volo. 
Heaut.  1066.     Syro  ignoscas:  volo. 

nolo. 

Most.  1176.    nolo  ores. 

Pers.  245.    nolo  ames. 

Andr.  819.    me  nolo  in  tempore  hoc  videat  senex. 

Heaut.  701.    quin  nolo  mentiare. 

malo. 

Pseud.  209.    taceas:  malo. 

Adelph.  782.     an  tibi  iam  mavis  cerebrum  dispergam  hie? 


16 

caveo. 

Cato,  E.  B.  V.  6.    terrain  cariosam  cave  ne  ares. 
Accius,  Epig.  I.  304  B.    cave  vestem  attigas. 
Capt.  431.    cave  tu  mi  iratus  fuas. 
Most.  1025.   tu  cave  quadraginta  accepisse  hinc  te  neges. 
Adelph.  458.  cave  dixeris. 
Andr.  403.     cave  te  esse  tristem  sentiat. 
Heaut.  187.    cave  faxis. 

Heaut.  302.    et  cave  ne  falsam  gratiam  studeas  inire. 
Cato,  E.  E.  I.  4.     caveto  alienam  disciplinam  temere  contemnas. 
Cato,  B.  E.  XXVIII.     1.    Caveto,  cum  ventus  siet  aut  imber,  effodias 

aut  feras. 
Cato,  E.  E.  XX.  2.     caveto  ne  laxi  sient. 

Ib.  XXXII.  2.    caveto  ne  vitem praestringas. 

Ib.  XL.  2.   caveto:  ne  librum  convellasD 

Obsecro. 

Heaut.  432.   due  me  ad  cum,  obsecro. 
Most.  460.    fuge  obsecro  atque  abscede. 
Most.  618.     obsecro  hercle,  tu  iube  obicere  argentum  ob  os  impurac. 

beluae. 
Amph.  923  seq.  per  dexteram  tuam  te,  Alcumena,  oro  opsecro,  da  mihi 

lianc  veniam,  ignosce,  irata  ne  sies. 
Most.  1156  seq.     nunc  te  obsecro,  stultitiae  adulescentiaeque  eius  ig- 

noscas. 
Adelph    309.     Propius  obsecro  accedamus. 

Quaeso. 

Most.  652.    Absolve  Tiunc  quaeso. 
Ib.  835.     Quaeso  hue  ad  me  specta. 
Ib.  1177.   noxiam  unam  quaeso  fac  causa  mea. 
Eud.  1298.    Di  quaeso  subvenite. 

Pacuv.  Ilion.    I.  200  E.  neu  reliquias  quaeso  mias  sireis.2) 
Heaut.  537.    Eho  quaeso  laudas. 
Andr.  305.     Quaeso id  veils  quod  possit. 

amabo. 

Most.  166.     contempla,  amabo. 
Ib.  298.    cedo  amabo  decem. 
Ib.  324.    duce  me  amabo. 

Poen.  380.    amabo,  mea  voluptas,  sine  te  exorarier. 
Eud.  249.     Quo  amabo  ibimus? 

1)  Careto  with   ne   is   more  frequent  than   without  ne  in   Cato.     Cf. 
R.  R.  XLV.  2;  XLVIIII.  2;  LIII. ;  CLXI.  2;  CLXI.  4;  etc. 

2)  Fleckeisen  reads :   neu  tu  reliquias  sic  meas  sieris. 


Rogo.    . 

C.  I.  L.    I.  1027.    rogo  te  viator:  monumento  huic  nil  male  fecerisD 
Most.  680.     roga  circumducat. 

Oro. 

C.  I.  L.  I.  1175.    semol  te  orant  se  [v~\oti  crebro  condemn es.2) 
Capt.  1021.   sed  tu  die,  or  a. 

Sino. 
Caecilius,  Hymnis,  II.  72.  E.   sine  suam  senectutem  ducat  usque  ad 

senium  sorbilo. 

Most.  11.    sine  modo  adveniat. 
Ib.1180.    sine  te  exorem. 
Bacch.  24.   sine  te  amem. 
Cato,  R.  R.  LXXXXII.    sinito  tnacerescant. 
Ib.  CXVI.   sinito  arescat. 
Ib.  CIX.   sinito  conbibant  noctem  et  diem. 
Ib.  CXII.  2.    sinito  bene  coquantur. 

Cedo. 

Rud.  1380.    cedo  quicum  liabeam  iudicem.3) 
Most.  478.    quid  istuc  est,  sceleste,  aut  quis  id  fecit,  cedo. 

iubeo. 

Most.  930.    curriculo  iube  in  urbem  veniat. 

i 
euro. 

Cato,  R.  R.  CXLIII.     vilicae  quae  sunt  officia  curato  faciat. 

licet  and  licebit. 

Titinius,  Fullon.  II.  27.    nee  noctu  nee  diu  licet  fullonibus  quiescant. 
Capt.  303.    facto  nunc  laedat  licet: 
Phorm.  347.    ludas  licet. 
Rud.  139.  salvos  sis  licet. 
Cato,  R.  R.  CLVIII.  2.    licebit  bibas. 
Ib.  LXXXIII.  1.  licebit  faciat. 

oportet. 
Cato,  R.  R.  XIV.     1.    faber  haec  faciat  oportet. 

metuo. 

Titinius,  S'etina,  II.  107.    metuo  —  -  ne  nimis  stulte  fecerim. 

Asin.  743.  ne  uxor  resciscat  metuit. 

1)  Cf.  C.  I.  L.  XIV.  2535.     per  deos  superos  inferosque  te  rogo:  ne 
ossuaria  velis  violare. 

2)  Cf.  Hor.  Sat.  II.     6,  35.   orulat —          -  adesses;  Ib.  37;  also  wall 
inscription  of  Pompeii,  C.  I.  L.  IV.  01.    M  •  MARIVM  •  AED  •  FACI  •  ORO  • 
VOS,  i.  e.  M.  Marium  aedilem  fariatift:  oro  vos;  cf.  C.  I.  L.  IV.  171  et  al. 

3)  Colloquial  for,  cedo  habeam  aliquem  quicum  ad  iudicem  earn. 

Parataxis  in  early  latin.    2. 


18 

The  preceding  lists  of  final  clauses  belong  to  the  class  often  called 
complementer}7,  that  is,  the  subordinate  clause  is  the  complement  of 
specific  verbs. 

The  verbs  of  will,  volo,  malo,  nolo,  are  regularly  construed  with  the 
subjunctive  without  ut.  The  most  probable  origin  of  this  construction 
is  the  following.  The  desire  or  wish  was  at  first  expressed  by  the 
subjunctive  alone.  Thus,  Syro  ignoscas  was  equivalent  to,  "may  you 
pardon  Syrus."  Volo  was  a  later  addition,  employed  to  emphasize 
the  wish  that  was  already  expressed  by  the  subjunctive.  This  emphasis 
was  again  strengthened  by  the  use  of  velim^)  as  in  Most.  1074.  The 
adverbial  particle  uti,  ut  (later  utinam)  often  preceded  the  sub- 
junctive of  wish,-)  and  finally  developed  into  a  subordinate  conjunc- 
tion.3) In  later  times  when  ut  had  become  thoroughly  established  as 
a  conjunction,  it  was  often  omitted  for  ease  in  expression,  cf.  the 
English  sentence,  "I  wish  (that)  he  would  come."  This  sort  of  para- 
taxis Kiihner  calls  rhetorical.4) 

The  imperatives  cave  and  caveto  are  frequently  found  before  a  sub- 
junctive either  with  or  without  ne.  The  two  constructions  evidently 
developed  side  by  side.  The  first  was  formed  as  was  the  construction 
with  volo.  The  prohibition  was  first  expressed  by  ne  (=non)  with 
the  subjunctive,  viz.,  ne  falsam  gratiam  studeas  inire.  Cave  was  then 
added,  giving  additional  weight  to  the  prohibition.  The  other  con- 
struction in  which  cave  is  used  without  ne  is  not  a  development  of 
the  former,  i.  e.  cave  respexis,  (Most.  523)  is  not  at  first  equivalent 
to  ne  respexis  as  has  been  held  by  some  writers  on  parataxis.5) 
The  explanation  given  by  Lindskog6)  seems  more  probable.  The 
clause  represented  by  faxis  in  cave  faxis,  (Heaut.  187),  was  originally 
conditional,  (=if  you  do  this:  beware).  Cf.  Andr.  752  seq.  verbum 
si  mihi  unum  praeter  quam  te  rogo  faxis:  caveJ)  Later,  however, 
this  origin  was  forgotten  and  cave  became  equivalent  to  ne  or  cave  ne. 

1)  Cf.  Morris,  I. at.  fiynt.  p.  135,  note;  and  Weninger,  Parat.  p.  55. 

2)  Cf.  Poen.  912.  valeas  beneque  ut  tibi  sit. 

3)  In  liyi>otaxis  volo,  etc.,  are  followed  both  by  lit  and  the  subj.  and 

ace.  w.  inf.  e.  g.  Non.  quoting  Sext.  Turp.  s.  v.  fungi,  sed  volo  ut 

fiinuatur;  Most.  032.  velim  ut  petas;  Lucil.,Sat.  XXVI.,  593  M.    Persium 
haec  legere  nolo;  Andr.  898.  vis  me  uxorem  duceref    Ut  is  not  found  after 
volo   (nolo,  malo)   in  Terence,  cf.  Weninger,  Parat.  pp.  55 — 56. 

4)  Cf.  Introd.  pp.  13. 

5)  See  Weuinger,  de  parat.  vestig.  p.  57,  and  Schmalz  Lat.  Synt.  p.  171. 

6)  Quaest.  p.  19,  note  1. 

7)  Lindskog.  Quaest.  p.  19,  note  1.  "Hoc  modo  esse  ortum  coniunctivum 
cum  verbo  cave  eoniuiictuni  concludere  possumus  et  ex  ea  re,  quod  con- 
iunctivus  ad  solam  iiuperativi  forma m  (cave)   legitur   (at  cetera  verba  — 
ut  facio,   fit  no  —  non    solum    post    imperativi    formam    hunc   coniunctivum 
nudum    habent,    sed   etiam   post   alias   verbi    formas)    et    ex    eo,    quod   in 
generibus  usitatissimis  dicendi    (imprimis  ad   verbum    facio:  cave  faxis) 
semper  fere  perfecti.  non  praesentis  coniunctivum  legi."     Cf.     De  enunt. 
ap.  PI.  et  Tor.  Condic.  pp.  28  ff. 


•  19 

The  ace.  w.  inf.  was  occasionally  used  after  cave,  e.  g.  Vaticinium 
in  Livy  5,  16,  aquam  Albanam  cave  lacu  teneri,  cave  in  mare  manare. 

At  least  three1)  different  meanings  of  the  verb  obsecro  may  be 
distinguished,  viz.,  a)  I  beseech,  (due  me  ad  eum:  obsecro) ;  b)  tell 
me,  I  beg,  (Most.  1083.  Elio,  an  negavit  sibi  datum  argentum: 
obsecro?) ;  c)  I  assure  you,  (Merc.  789,  nesceis  negoti  quid  sit  uxor: 
obsecro).  Only  when  used  in  the  first  quoted  meaning  does  a  com- 
plementary final  clause  follow.  In  origin  it  is  similar  to  the  above. 
The  final  clause  was  at  first  a  command  or  an  exhortation  expressed 
by  the  imperative  or  the  subjunctive  either  without  or  with  ut.  The 
extant  examples  of  ut  with  the  subj.  must,  however,  be  classed  as 
hypotactic,  e.  g.  Most.  1036.  nunc  te  obsecro,  ut  me  bene  iuves 
operamque  des;  Amph.  388 ;  Asin.  38 ;  Poen.  392 ;  etc.  The  paratactic 
origin  is,  however,  evident  if  we  resolve  the  sentence  just  quoted : 
"May  you  kindly  aid  me  and  lend  me  your  assistance;  I  .beseech 
you." 2)  When  obsecro  is  followed  by  ne  and  the  subjunctive,  the 
sentence  may  perhaps  in  some  cases  still  be  considered  paratactic,  e.  g. 
Heaut.  1048.  mi  vir,  te  obserco:  ne  -faciasp)  ne  being  equivalent 
to  non. 

Quaeso,  like  obsecro,  is  of  very  frequent  occurrence4)  and  is  used 
in  a  similar  way.  It  is  most  frequently  found  with  the  imperative, 
which  its  addition  renders  less  harsh.5)  Rud.  1298.  Di  quaeso 
subvenite,  would  be  no  prayer,  if  quaeso  were  omitted.  The  para- 
tactic structure  with  the  subjunctive  and  the  indicative  is  not  so  fre- 
quent, but  the  hypotactic  sentence  with  ut  and  ne  is  often  found.6) 
This  verb  is  also  often  used  parenthetically,  e.  g.  Caecilius,  Plocium 
II.  158.  sed  tua  morosane  uxor,  quaeso,  est. 

The  paratactic  construction  with  amabo  is  probably  conditional 
in  origin  like  cave  with  the  subjunctive  treated  above.  Thus  the 
origin  of  the  sentence,  contempla:  amabo  may  be  understood  by 
translating  it,  "if  you  look,  I  shall  love  you."  This  expression  first 

1)  Obsecro  is  also  often  used  parenthetically,  see  Lindskog,  Quaest. 
pp.  8  ff. 

2)  For  a  discussion   of  this   whole  subject  see  Ostendorf,   A.     Zum 
Gebrauch  von  UT   bei  Plautus,   Vierzehnter   Jahresbericht,    ( Neumiinster, 
1888),  Progr.  Nu.  264. 

3)  Cf.  Capt.  319;  Most.  1097;  Phorm.  944;  et  al. 

4)  Obsecro  occurs  216   times  and  quaeso  146  times   in  Plautus  and 
T^erence.  Lindskog,  Quaest.  pp.  7  and  13. 

5)  Cf.  Weissenhorn,  Parat.  Plaut.  p.  8:  "Huius  imperativi  vis  debili- 
tatur  et  ad  precationis  speciem  revocatur  verbis  oraudi  solute  appositis." 

6)  With   ut,   Novius,   Androm.    II.   4,   R.    quaeso   ut  in  pectuft   tuum 
demittas;  Cato,  R.  R.  CXLI.  2,  sic  dicito,  'Mars  pater,  te  precor  guaesoque 
uti   sies   volens   propitius   mihi   domo    familiaeque   nostrae;    Capt.    1025; 
Adelph.  275;  etc. 

With  ne,  Bacch.   1013  seq.,  quaeso,  pater,  ne  me  -  -  deseras; 

Cure.  400,  quaeso  ne  me  incomities;  Asin.  450,  etc. 


20  ' 

restricted  in  meaning  and  used  only  by  women,1)  in  time  acquired 
a  meaning  similar  to  quaeso,-)  and  was  used  by  all  without  any 
restrictions.  The  original  of  the  hypotactic  construction  with  uts) 
may  be  understood  from,  sed  scin  quid  te  amabo:  ut  facias,  "but  do 
you  know  what  I  ask  you?  may  you  do  that,"  and  quin  (qui  -f-  ne)4) 
amabo  accubas,  "I  ask  you :  why  don't  you  take  your  place  ?" 

The  verbs  oro  and  rogo  are  used  in  the  same  way  as  quaeso.  In 
later  Latin  they  are  construed  with  ut  and  the  subjunctive  or  with 
the  ace.  w.  inf. 

The  paratactic  sentences,  in  which  the  subjunctive  is  joined  to  the 
imperatives,  sine,  (sinito),  cedo,  iube,  curato,  are  alike  in  origin.  The 
subjunctive  at  first  expressed  the  wish  independently  of  the  impera- 
tive. Later  the  imperative  was  added  for  the  sake  of  emphasis  or 
to  distinguish  the  subjunctive  used  as  a  wish  from  other  uses.  Thus 
sine:  adveniat  originally  meant,  "may  he  come:  let  him."  When 
this  use  had  .been  established,  other  forms  of  the  verbs  were  employed. 
Occasionally  the  indicative5)  instead  of  the  subjunctive  is  found  in 
the  subordinate  clause.  These  verbs  are  also  followed  by  ut  and  the 
subjunctive  and  occasionally  by  the  infinitive.6) 

In  addition  to  the  verbs  licet  7)  oportet,  and  metuo,  of  which  exam- 
ples are  given,  other  verbs  are  also  found  introducing  complementary 
final  clauses.  S'uch  are  opto,  placet,  precor,  peto,  hortor,  postulo,  etc. 

CHAPTEE  II. 

CONSECUTIVE  SUBSTANTIVE  CLAUSES. 

Verbs  denoting  bringing  to  pass  and  happening,  i.  e.  facio,  fio, 
sum,  etc.,  are  often  joined  to  an  indicative  or  a  subjunctive.  Of 

1)  Blase,  Archiv  fur  lat.  Lex.  IX.  (1896)  p.  491.     "Es   (i.  e.  amabo) 
1st  ein  Schmeichelwort  vorzugsweise  der  Frauen,  freier  und  unfreier.  nur 
an  wenigen   Stellen   lasst  Plautus  es,  um  eine  komische  Wirkung  zu  er- 
ziehlen,  von  Mannern  an  Frauen  riehten,  ein  einziges  Mai  aus  demselben 
Grande   von   einer   mannlichen   Person   an   eine   andere."     Cf.    Lindskog, 
Quaest.  p.  20. 

2)  Weissenhorn,    Parat.    Plaut.    p.-  9,    "Eundem    fere    sensum.    qnem 
verbiim  quaeso,  accipit  formula,  amabo,  quam  Brixius  explicat  'amauter 
rogabo'." 

3)  Amabo  w.  ut:  Cist.  104.  nunc  te  amabo  ut sinas;  Eun.  537. 

amabo  ut  illuc  tranxcax;  Men.  524;  True.  872;  etc. 

4)  Cf.  Chapter  III.  p.  26. 

5)  See  Morris.  A.  J.  P.  XVIII.  p.  144. 

6)  E.  g.  Pacuv.  Niptra  I.  244,   R.  cedo  tuum  pedem  mi  -  -  ut 
—  abluam  lassitudinemque  minuam;  Cato,  R.  R.  V,  4.  opus  ntsticum 

omne  curet  uti  sciat  facere;  Most.  12.  sine  modo  venire  salvuom,  quern 
absentem  comes. 

7)  For  the  use  of  licet  in  concessive  clauses  see  Chapter  X..  p.  45. 
Cf.  discussion  of  constructions  with  licet  in  Archiv  fur  lat.  Lex.  XI.  pp. 
9—26. 


21 

these  verbs  facio  is  by  far  the  most  common  and  will  therefore  be 
treated  at  greater  length. 

fac  or  face. 

Capt.  439.    fac  fidelis  sis  fideli. 
Epid.  567.    fac  videam. 
Most.  400.    aedes  iam  fac  occlusae  sient. 
Ennius,  Sat.  30  f.  V.     fac  amicos  eas  et  roges  veniant  operamque 

mutuam  dent  et  messim  hanc  nobis  adiuvent. 
Ennius,  Heduphaget.  Varia,  39.  V.    Surrenti  elopem  fac  emas. 

Pacuv.  II.  I.  208  E.    fac hanc  operam  mihi  des. 

Adelph.  813  seq.    fac  quam  plurumum  illis  relinquas. 

Trin.  174.     fac  sciam. 

Cato,  E.  E.  V.  7.    opera  omnia  mature  conficias  face.  *) 

Cato,  E.  E.  XXXII,  1.  Vineas  arboresque  mature  face  incipias  putare. 

Most.  854.     Tranio,  age  canem  istam  a  foribus  aliquis  abducat  face. 

facito. 
C.  I.  L.,  I.  198,  Exempl.  Meinian.  13  tab.  facito  det  de  consili  maioris 

partis. 

C.  I.  L.,  I.  119,  Lex  Jul.  Munic.  206.    denuntietur  facito. 
C.  I.  L.,  I.  197,  Tab.  Bantin.  1.  10.    facitoque  ioudicetur. 
Ib.  1.  11.    aut  bona  eius  poplice  possideantur  facito. 
Most.  216.    at  hoc  unum  facito  cogites. 
Cato,  E.  E.  XXV.  1.     facitoque  studeas  bene  percoctum  siccumque 

legere. 

Cato,  E.  E.  LXV,  IX.  1.    facito  calescat. 
Cato,  E.  E.  XLI.  4.    eos  -          -  facito  sint. 
Adelph.  500.    hoc  tu  facito  cum  animo  cogites. 

facite. 

Heaut.  28.    facite  aequi  sitis. 

Adelph.  24  seq.  facite  aequanimitas2)  -  -ad  scribendum  augeat 

industriam. 

Other  forms. 

Heaut.  398.    tu  nunc  sola  reducem  me  in  patriam  fads. 
Cato,  E.  E.  XX.  1.    labeam  bifariam  faciat  habeat. 

faxo. 

a)  Capt.  1010.    at  nunc  liber  in  divitias  faxo  venies. 
Bacch.  715.    iam  faxo  hie  erunt. 

1)  Fac  is  followed  by  facio  in  inscriptions  found  at  Pompeii,  e.  g. 
"e.  I.  L.,  IV.  1071.     MODESTVM -AED -PANS -FAG -FACIAS.     "Pansa,  see 

that  you  elect  Modestus  for  the  aedileship." 

2)  Fleckeisen  indicates  a  lacuna  between  aeqtianimitas  and  ad. 


22 

Pseud.  49.    faxo  sties. 

Andr.  854.     iam  facinus  faxo  ex  me  audies. 

Eun.  285.    ne  tu  istas  faxo  calcibus  saepe  insultabis  frustra. 

Rud.  365.     scibis  faxo. 

Ib.  578.    exaresccnt  faxo. 

Ib.  1351.    iam  ego  faxo  exibit  senex. 

b)  Aul.  578.    ego  faxo  et  operam  et  vinum  perdiderit  simul. 
Capt.  801.    Qui  mi  in  cursu  opstiterit,  faxo  vitae  is. opstiterit  suae. 
Men.  521.    faxo  hand  inultus  prandium  comederis. 

Poen.  346.    deferto  ad  me,  faxo  actutum  constiterit  lymphaticum. 
Trin.  60.    faxo  liaud  tantillum  dederis  verborum  mihi. 

c)  Amph.  972.    faxo  hand  quicquam  sit  morae. 
Bacch.  864.    faxo  se  hand  dicat  nactam,  quern  derideat. 
Most.  68.    ervom  tibi  aliquis  eras  faxo  ad  villam  adferat. 
Most.  1133.     ego  ferare  faxo,  ut  meruisti,  in  crucem. 

Adelph.  209.     cupide  accipiat  iam  faxo  ac  bene  dicat  secum  etiam 

esse  actum. 
Trin.  882.    et  meum  nomen  et  mea  facta  et  itinera  ego  faxo  scias. 

Other  verbs. 

Bacch.  85.     rapidus  fluvius  est  hie:  non  hac  temere  transiri  potest. 
Most.  108.     illud  saepe  fit:  tempestas  venit. 

Lucilius,  S'at.  IV.  154,  M.     verum  illud  credo  fore:  in  os  prius  ac- 
cipiam  ipse. 

The  examples  of  facio  given  above  naturally  fall  into  two  groups, 
viz.,  a)  Simple  sentences  in  the  imperative  (fac,  facito,  facile},  fol- 
lowed by  clauses  in  the  subjunctive,  to  which  may  be  added  other  forms 
of  facio  in  the  second  and  third  person,  as  facial  and  fads,  which  are 
used  in  the  same  way  as  fac,  etc.;  b)  the  aoristic  form  faxo,  followed 
by  the  future  or  future  perfect  indicative  and  the  present  subjunctive. 

Sentences  like  fac:  videam,  and  fac:  fidelis  sis  fideli  reveal  the 
paratactic  origin  of  the  sentences  in  the  first  group.  First  a  voli- 
tive  or  optative  subjunctive  was  used  independently,  i.  e.  "may  I 
see,"  and  "be  thou  faithful  to  the  faithful."  The  imperative  was 
then  added,  still  leaving  the  clauses  independent.1)  The  subordinate 
clause  is  also  often  found  introduced  by  ut,  a  construction  which 

1)  It  should  be  remembered  that  by  the  term  independent  the  present 
writer  here  has  reference  only  to  the  form,  and  to  the  fact  that  man 
in  an  early  stage  of  culture  did  not  understand  the  nature  of  the  relation. 
This  is,  of  course,  what  Schwalz  means  (Lat.  Synt.  §265).  He  does  not 
imply,  as  Morris  thinks,  (Lat.  Synt.  p.  117),  that  to  us  Surrenti  clopem 
fac  emas,  for  instance,  is  not  as  much  a  complex  sentence  as  fac  tit  rem 
trades. 


23 

originated  from  an  independent  use  of  ut  with  the  subjunctive,1) 
and  which  became  the  formal  way  of  expressing  the  subordination.2) 

Kegarding  the  use  of  faxo  there  are  several  points  that  call  for 
notice.  Space  does  not  allow  a  detailed  discussion  of  the  opposing 
theories  that  have  been  held.  The  problem  that  has  confronted  the 
syntactist  is  this.  Faxo  is  found  joined  both  with  the  future  indica- 
tive and  the  present  subjunctive,  but  with  no  distinction  in  meaning. 
The  construction  with  the  indicative  predominates  in  the  early 
writers,  the  ratio  being  about  4  to  1  in  Plautus.3)  In  the  later 
writers  this  ratio  is  reversed.  This  fact  caused  Madwig4)  and  others 
who  followed  him,  to  suggest  that  the  subjunctives  were  due  to 
errors  in  the  codices,  and  for  this  reason  changed  all  the  subjunctives 
in  Plautus  to  indicatives.  This  was  rendered  more  easy  since  most 
of  the  subjunctives  belong  to  the  third  and  fourth  conjugations,  in 
which  the  present  subjunctive  and  the  future  indicative  are  alike 
in  the  first  person  singular  and  differ  only  in  a  letter  in  the  second 
and  third  persons. 

Another  theory  has  also  been  held.  It  has  been  stated5)  that  there 
is  no  certain  instance  of  a  future  indicative  in  Plautus,  in  other 
words,  that  the  indicatives  might  just  as  well  be  turned  into  sub- 
junctives. The  later  prevalent  use  of  faxo  with  the  subjunctive, 
and  the  fact  that  no  other  form  of  the  verb  facio  is  found  used  to- 
gether with  the  indicative,  have  been  held  up  as  favoring  this  view. 

There  is,  however,  no  good  reason  for  questioning  the  codices. 
Such  forms  as  erunt,  (Bacch.  715),  sdbis,  (Eud.  365),  exibit,  (Bud. 
1351),  insultabis,  (Eun.  285  6)  ),  can  not  be  accounted  for  by  a  mis- 
take of  the  scribe.  The  predominence  of  the  subjunctive  after  faxo 
in  later  Latin  is  sufficient  proof  that  also  this  reading  is  correct.7) 
The  conclusion  of  Ashmore  in  the  paper  quoted  above  is  undoubt- 
edly right.  "The  indicative  represents  the  earlier  and  more  colloquial 
use.  The  subjunctive  came  in  by  degrees,  as  the  style  of  writing 
.became  more  formal,  until  in  the  Augustan  age  it  is  the  rule."  It 

1)  Cf.  volo,  etc.,  followed  by  ut  and  the  subj.    Chapter  I.  p.  18. 

2)  Facio  with  ut  and  the  subjunctive:  Pomponius,  Arusp.  II.  10 — 11. 
bucco,  puriter  fac  ut  rem  tractes;  Cato,  R.  R.  XXII.  \.    facito  uti  ducas; 
Ib.  V.  6;  VIII.  2;  XXIII;  XXV.  1;  XXXI.  1;  XXXIII.   1;  XLVIII.  2; 
LXX.  2 ;  LXXXV  ;  CLI.  4,  etc. ;  Amph.  982 ;  Capt.  337 ;  Ib.  411 ;  Most.  1145 ; 
Andr.  37;  483;   712;   Heaut.  925.     See  Sjogren,  DC  part,  copul.  pp.  77  ff., 
and  Persson,  Adn.  Plaut.  pp.  8  ff. 

3)  Cf.  Ashmore,  Trans.  Am.  Phil.  Ass.  XXVIII,   (1897),  p.  viii,  "There 
are  41  indubitable  instances  of  faxo  with  the  future  indicative ;  12  indubit- 
able instances  of  faxo  with  the  present  subjunctive ;  2  instances  where 
Ritschl  records  a  variant  reading  with  the  present  subjunctive." 

4)  Opusc.  acad.   II.  77. 

5)  See  Freeman  and  Sloman,  Andria,  note  1.  854. 

6)  "The  only  instance  of  a  future  after  faxo  in  Terence",  Ashmore.  ib. 

7)  Cf.  Weninger,  1.  c.  pp.  43  ff. 


24 

should  be  added,  that  the  use  of  the  subjunctive,  undoubtedly,  came 
into  vogue  through  analogy  from  the  use  of  the  subjunctive  after 
other  forms  of  facio,  and  through  the  similarity  of  the  forms  of  the 
present  subjunctive  and  the  future  indicative,  mentioned  above. 
Faxo  scias,  etc.,  became  a  stereotyped  formula  and  was  used  in  all 
periods.  Ui,  is  never  found  in  the  later  writers,1)  but  forms  other 
than  the  first  person  were  used.2) 

Faxo  was  also  used  with  the  future  perfect,  as  is  shown  by  the 
examples  given  on  page  54.  Because  of  the  similarity  of  this  tense 
to  the  perfect  subjunctive,  a  difficulty  has  also  here  been  caused  sim- 
ilar to  the  above.  The  original  form,  in  all  probability  is,  however, 
the  indicative.3) 

Other  verbs  are  also  found,  contrary  to  the  statement  of  Weissen- 
horn,3)  which  are  followed  by  complementary  consecutive  clauses. 
The  sentences  are,  however,  few  and  irregular  in  construction. 


CHAPTER  III. 

INDIRECT  QUESTIONS   AND   EXCLAMATIONS. 

Numerous  instances  of  paratactic  indirect  questions  and  exclama- 
tions are  found.  They  may  be  arranged  in  two  classes:  a)  clauses 
in  which  the  indicative  mood  is  used;  b)  clauses  in  which  an  origi- 
nal4) subjunctive  is  used.  Only  a  few  of  the  many  examples  can  be 
here  given. 

1.    With  the  Indicative, 
a)  Sext.  Turp.,  Epicl.  II.  50,  B.    Quaeso,  edepol:  quo  ante  lucem  te 

subito  rapis. 

Most.  35.    quaeso  non  sunt. 

Most.  149.    cor  dolet,  quom  scio  ut  nunc  sum  atque  ut  fui. 
Most.  478.     quis  id  fecit:  cedo. 
Most.  614.    vide:  num  moratur. 
Capt.  623.    die  mihi:  quis  illic  igitur  est. 
Eud.  333.    opsecro:  quis  hie  loquitur. 

Bacch.  692.    nunc  hoc  tibi  curandumst quid  vis  curem. 

Aul.  634.    redde  hue  sis:  quid  tibi  vis  reddam. 
Bacch.  558.    die:  quis  est. 

1)  In   Plautus   it   is  found  at   least  once.   Asin.   902.   faxo   ut   scias. 
Cf.  Ashmore,  Trans.  Am.  Phil.  Ass.  Vol.  28  (1897),  p.  viii. 

2)  E.  g.  Seneca,  Medea.  905,  faxis  sc'uint. 

3)  See  the  discussion  of  this  in  Weissenhorn,  Parat.  Plaut.  pp.  11 — 12. 

4)  A  question  already  in  the  subjunctive  may  become  indirect,  e.  g. 
Capt.  455.  dubltavi:  hos  homines  emerem  an  non  emerem.     The  indirect 
question  was  here  originally  deliberative. 


25 

Amph.  421.    signi  die:  quid  est. 

Rud.  156.    ubi  sunt  hi  homines:  opsecro. 

Most.  366.    ubi  is  est:  obsecro. 

Accius,  Dec.  I,  12.  R.    dice:  summa  ubi  perduellum  est. 

Cato,  R.  R.  VI.  4.    vineam  quo  in  agro  conseri  oportet  sic  observato. 

Adelph.  325.    Eloquere  ergo,  te  obsecro,  quid  actumst. 

Heaut.  430.    ubinam  est  quaeso. 

b)  Most.  829.    specta  quam  arte  dormiunt. 

Ib.  855.    aspice  ut  placid e  accubat. 

Ib.  1172.    viden  ut  astat  furcifer. 

Stich.  410.    videte,  quaeso,  quid  potest  pecunia. 

2.     With  the  subjunctive. 

Most.  969.     quo  venerim:  novi  locum. 

Capt.  455.    dubitavi:  hos  homines  emerem  an  non  emerem. 

Bacch.  745.    loquere  quid  scribam. 

Merc.  386.     die  quid  velis. 

Capt.  270.    servosne  esse  an  liber  mavelis  memora  mihi. 

Rud.  1070.     nulla  causast  quin  me  condones  cruci. 

Amph.  559.     tamen  quin  loquar  haec  uti  facia  sunt:  hie  nunquam 

ullo  modo  me  potes  deterrere. 

Andr.  600.    quid  causaest:  quin  in  pistrinum  recta  proficiscar  via? 
Phorm.  272.    non  causam  dico,  quin  quod  meritus  sit  ferat. 

Apparently  direct  questions  in  the  indicative  are  found  in  the 
early  language  joined  paratactically  to  verbs  of  saying,  knowing,  and 
the  like.  This  construction  is  found  at  the  side  of  the  construction 
with  the  subjunctive,  and  with  no  distinction  of  meaning.  The  only 
difference  between  die:  quid  est?  and  die  quid  sit  is  in  form,  as  is 
the  case  with  the  English,  "Tell  me,  what  is  it?"  and,  "Tell  me 
what  it  is."1)  The  former  was  the  primitive  way  of  joining  the 
propositions,  i.  e.  the  indirect  question  did  not  differ  from  the  direct 
in  form.  Later,  however,  when  the  subordinate  relation  was  more 
clearly  felt  and  it  became  customary  to  indicate  this  relation  by  the 
language,  the  subjunctive  was  resorted  to  in  the  case  of  Latin,  while 
in  English  the  same  concept  was  expressed  by  transposition  of  words. 

It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  verbs  like  obsecro,  quaeso,  specta,  etc., 
very  often  may  be  understood  as  parenthetical.2)  That  is,  they  were 
often  spoken  incidentally  with  no  connection  with  the  question  or 

1)  Cf.    Lindskog.    Quaest.    p.    71,    "saepe  —  imprimis    in    populi    ser- 
mone —  (interrogationes)    rectae  et  obliquae     minimo  dlscrimine  secerne- 
bantur." 

2)  E.  g.  Most.  209.     Cur,  obsecro,  non  curemf 


26 

exclamation.  But  in  many  cases,  even  where  this  origin  must  be 
conceded,  these  verbs  assumed  governing  force  as  in  the  exclamation 
specta:  quarn  arte  dormiunt,  and  in  ubinam  est:  quaeso,  and  ubi  is 
est:  obsecro. 

In  the  second  group  of  sentences  the  subjunctive  is  not  necessarily 
a  sign  of  subordination.  This  subjunctive  was  found  in  the  inde- 
pendent sentence,  to  which  the  introductory  word  was  added.  Thus 
quid  scribam?  (deliberative  subjunctive),  "what  shall  I  write?"  when 
joined  to  loquere,  became  loquere  quid  scribam. 

The  same  is  true  of  ^law-clauses  that  belong  to  this  group.  Quin 
(i.  e.  qui  -f-  ne  =  why  not)  often  introduced  independent  sen- 
tences, cf.  Phorm.  1015,  sed  ea  quin  sit  ignoscenda!  "Why  should 
it  not  be  worthy  of  pardon!"1)  In  the  sentences  quoted  above  quin 
must  be  understood  in  this  way;  e.  g.  nulla  causa  est:  quin  me  con- 
dones cruci,  is  first  equivalent  to  "why  should  you  not  deliver  me  up 
to  torture?  There  is  no  reason  why  you  should  not."2) 

The  origin  of  the  later  general  use  of  the  subjunctive  in  these 
clauses  is  to  be  understood  as  follows.  When  the  originally  delibera- 
tive subjunctive,  e.  g.  quid  scribam:  loquere,  because  of  frequency  of 
use,  came  to  be  considered  the  vehicle  of  the  relational  concept,  as 
this  was  more  fully  understood,  it  was  analogously  employed  in  the 
second  and  third  persons  and  in  tenses  other  than  the  present.3) 

In  this  connection  it  will  be  in  place  to  remark  that  the  use  of  the 
subjunctive  to  denote  subordination  is  comparatively  late  in  the 
development  of  language.  Subordination  is  expressed  by  the  sub- 
junctive in  late  Latin,  not  because  such  a  function  is  inherent  in  this 
mood,  but  because  subjunctives  of  wish  and  will,  which  were  fre- 
quently joined  paratactically  to  other  expressions,  gave  the  impres- 
sion, when  felt  to  be  subordinate,  that  this  concept  was  expressed  by 
the  mood.  The  use  of  the  subjunctive  in  indirect  questions  was, 
perhaps,  the  first  step  in  this  development. 

CHAPTEE  IV. 

INDIRECT   DISCOURSE. 

In  the  early  stages  of  language  verbs  of  knowing,  perceiving,  think- 
ing, and  saying  were  joined  loosely  to  the  subordinate  statement  in 

!)•  See  Elmer's  note  on  this  line. 

2)  For  the  most  complete  discussion  of  quin  see  Schnoor,  H.,  Quaest. 
Plaut.  pp.  10 — 39. 

3)  See  Schmalz,  Lat.  Synt.  p.  258,  §270  et  al.     For  various  theories 
regarding  the  early  indirect  question  see  Becker,  Studia  in  priscos  scrip- 
tores  Latinos  collata,  vol.   I.  fasc.   1,  pp.   115  ff.,  and  Lindskog,   Quaest. 
pp.  71  ff.,  and  92  ff. 


27 

the  indicative  or  an  original  subjunctive.1)  This  construction  we 
find  used  side  by  side  with  the  ace.  w.  inf.  construction,  and  quod 
clauses  with  the  indicative,  which  in  later  Latin  became  the  regular 
forms.  The  question  of  the  origin  of  the  accusative  with  infinitive 
construction  is  a  subject  apart  from  parataxis,2)  and  would,  there- 
fore, be  out  of  place  here.3)  In  the  following  list  of  clauses  the  order 
used  by  Becker  4)  will  te  partly  followed. 

1.     Verbs  of  knowing. 
scio. 

Capt.  440.    nam  pater  scio  faciet  quae  ilium  facere  oportet  omnia. 
Adelph.  256,  seq.  satis  certo  scio:  numquam  ita  magnifice  quicquam 

dicam. 

Phorm.  636,  seq.  nam  sat  scio:  —  -  Iria  non  commutabitis  verba. 

Pseud.  1315.     onerabis  scio. 
Adelph.  339.    ille  infitias  ibit,  sat  scio. 
Capt.  971.    pauca  effugiam:  scio. 
Pomponius,  Pappus  Praet.  II.  106,  E.    refragant  primo,  suffragabunt 

post  scio. 

Most.  1081.    scio  iocaris  tu  nunc. 
Ib.  699.     tota  turget  milii  uxor,  scio  domi. 
Ib.  334.    scio:  in  mentem  venit  modo. 

Capt.  326.    scio  ego,  multos  iam  lucrum  luculentos  homines  reddidit. 
Adelph.  360.     persuasit  ille  inpurus,  sat  scio. 
Cure.  53.    semper,  tu  scito,  flamma  fumost  proxuma. 
Heaut.  230,  seq.  si  mihi  secundae  res  de  amore  meo  essent,  iam  dudum 

scio  venissent. 

Hec.  756.  quod  pol,  si  essent  alia-  ex  hoc  quaestu,  hand  faceret  scio. 
Bacch.  635.  scio  dares. 

novi. 

Rud.  373.    novi:  Neptunus  ita  solet. 

Pers.  243.    novi:  omnes  sunt  lenae  levifidae. 


1)  Cf.  Holtze,  Synt.  Priftc.  Script.  Lot.  II.  p.  227,  "iuxta  ponentur  duae 
enunciationes   primariae   in   oratione  recta   ubi   plerumque  expectatur  ut 
altera  e  priore  per  oWiquam  oratioticrn  suspensa  sit". 

2)  See  A.  J.  P.  IV.  p.  420. 

3)  For  discussions  of  the  origin  of  the  ace.  w.  inf.  construction  see 
Herzog,   Neu.  Jahrb.    (1873);    Sclnnalz,  Lat.    8ynt.    8224;   and   Lindskog. 
Eranos,  I.  (189G)  pp.  121  ff.     The  last  article  gives  a  resume  of  past  and 
modern  theories  on  this  subject. 

4)  Beiordn.  und  unterordn.  Satzverb.  bei  den  altrb'm.  Buhnendichtcrn, 
(Metz,  1888).     Only  the  part  treating  the  following  construction  was  ever 
published. 


2.  Verbs  of  perceiving. 

video. 

Decimus,  Lab.,  Cat.  II.  23  R.  video:  adulescenti  nostro  caedis  hirulam, 
L.  Pomponius,  Macci  Gem.  Prior,  II.  70  R.  video:  erepsti  primiter 

de  pannibus. 

Pers.  284.    video  ego  te:  iam  incubitatus  es. 
Rud.  1331.    Quid  istic?    necessumst  video:  dabitur  talentum. 
Eun.  713.    non  potest  sine  malo  fateri:  video. 
Hec.  770.     nosier  socer,  video,  venit. 
Ennius,  Alex.  I.  54  seq.  R.    videte:  iudicabit  inclutum  indicium  inter 

deas  tris  aliquis. 

Lucilius,  1340,  M.    vis  est  vita,  vides,  vis  nos  facere  omnia  cogit. 
Cure.  325.    vide:  ne  me  ludas. 
Heaut.  212.    vide,  sis,  nequo  hinc  abeas  longius. 
Cato,  R,  R.  IX.  1.    et  id  videto:  uti  aut  domino  siet. 
Cato,  R.  R.  CVII.  2.     videto:  ne  aduras. 

audio. 

Asin,  116.    audin  tu:  apud  Archibulum  ego  ero  argentarium. 
Andr.  228.    audivi,  Archylis,  iam  dudum:  Lesbiam  adduci  iubes. 

sentio. 

Pseud.  466.  -iam  pridem  tu  me  spernis:  sentio. 
Andr.  436.    praeter  spem  evenit:  sentio. 

3.  Verbs  of  thinking. 

intellego. 

Most.  280.    verum  illuc  est:  maxuma  adeo  pars  vostrorum  intellegit, 
Pers.  802.    ludos  me  facitis:  intellego. 

cogito. 
Aul.    698,    seq.  nunc    ego    mecum    cogito me    illi    irasci 

iniuriumst. 

Cato,  Aul.  Gell.  16,  1,  4.    cogitate labor  ille  a  vobis  recedet. 

Eun.  56,  seq.  etiam  atque  etiam  cogita,  ere:  quae  res  in  se  neque  con- 

silium  neque  modum  habet  ullum,  earn  consilio  regere  non  potest. 

credo. 
Caecilius  Stat.,  Plocium  II.  151  seq.  R.    nunc  credo  inter  suas  aequa- 

lis,  cognatas,  sermonem  serit. 
C.  Lutat.  Catulus,  Epigr.  Aul.  Gell.  19,  9,  10.     credo,  ut  solet,  ad 

Theotimum  devenit. 
Amph.  297.    credo  misericors  est. 
Aul.  39.     credo  aurum  inspicere  volt. 


29 

Most.  441.     credo  expectatus  veniam  familiaribus. 

Most.  1080.    credo  hand  negat. 

Andr.  313.     credo  impetrabo. 

Capt.  19-6.     domi  fuistis  credo  liberi. 

Capt.  961.    quod  ego  fatear,  credin  pudeat  quom  autumes? 

Trin.  115.    haec,  si  mi  inimicus  esset,  credo  haud  crederet. 

Hec.  129.    si  adesset,  credo  ibi  eius  commiserescerit. 

censeo. 

Heaut.  588.    recte  dicit,  censeo. 

Eud.  1269.    censen  hodie  despondebit  earn  mini,  quaesof 

Andr:  578.    num  censes  faceret? 

opinor. 

i 

Asin.  151.     opinor  hie  ante  ostium  meo  modo  loquar,  quae  volam. 
Lucilius,  Sat.  216  M.     Me  solus  mgilavit,  opinor. 
End.  661.    opinor,  leno  pugnis  plectiiur. 
End.  1202.     accedam  opinor  ad  fores. 

spero. 

Epid.  124.    spero:  servabit  fidem. 
Adelph.  411.    salvos  sit  speroD 
Andr.  314.     interea  fiet  aliquid:  spero. 
Heaut.  553.    non  usus  veniet,  spero. 

4.    Verbs  of  saying. 

dico. 

Pers.  589.     prius  dico:  hanc  mancupio  nemo  tibi  dabit. 
Lucilius,  Sat.  XXVI.,  651  M.    ad  enim  dicis:  clandestino  tibi  quod 
conmissum  foret  neu  muttires  quicquam  neu  mysteria  ecferres 
foras. 

Aul.  346.     dicant:  coqui  abstulerunt. 
Phorm.  334.    dices:  ducent  damnatum  domum. 

interdico. 
Capt.  694.     nil  interdico  aiant  vivere. 

fateor. 

Aul.  88.    pauper  sum:  fateor. 
Bud.  735.    fateor:  ego  trifurcifer  sum. 
Heaut.  158.    ita  res  est,  fateor:  peccatum  a  me  maxumest. 

1)  Cf.  C.  I.  L.  passim  O.  S.  T.  T.  L.  opto  sit  tibi  terra  levis. 


30 

moneo. 
Most.  196.     monco  ego  te:  te  ille  deseret  aetate  satietate. 

Im-personal  verbs. 
Amph.  1048.    certumst:  intro  rumpam  in  aedis. 

Capt.  778.    nunc  certa  res  est :  coniciam  in  collum  pallium. 

Merc.  658.     hoc  mihi  certissumumst :  eo  domum. 

Asm.  448.     nunc  adeam:  optumumst. 

Poen.  1244.     pro  hoc  mihi  patronus  sim  necessest. 

The  verb  scio  is  usually  followed  by  the  ace.  w.  inf.  construction, 
both  in  early  and  later  Latin  writers.  In  a  number  of  cases,  how- 
ever, it  is  joined  paratactically  to  the  subordinate  statement.  Lind- 
skogl)  states  that  there  are  33  instances  of  this  construction  in 
Plautus  and  20  in  Terence.2) 

Though  it  must  be  admitted  that  this  verb  in  a  number  of  instances 
is  parenthetical,  still  the  rule  stated  by  Weissenhorn  and  Kiihner3) 
does  not  hold,  that  scio  and  other  verbs  of  this  class,  are  always 
parenthetical  when  inserted  in  the  middle  of  the  sentence.  Scio  may 
be  parenthetical,  when  it  stands  first  in  the  sentence  as  in  Asin. 
790,  scio;  capiiones  metuis^)  and  on  the  other  hand  it  may  govern 
another  proposition  when  it  is  inserted  as  in  Capt.  440,  nam  pater 
scio  faciet  quac  ilium  facere  oportet  omnia.  No  one  will  deny  that 
the  meaning  will  be  the  same,  if  the  construction  is  changed  to, 
nam  patrem  scio  facturum  esse,  etc.5)  Aside  from  this  it  has  been 
recognized  by  Schmalz  and  others,  that  the  parenthetical  sentence 
ought  really  to  be  included  under  the  definition  of  parataxis  given 
above.  It  is  at  least  certain  that  many  verbs  of  this  kind,  which 
originally  were  thrown  into  speech  here  and  there  very  much  in  the 
way  of  exclamations,  afterwards  were  understood  to  govern  the 
parallel  simple  sentence. 

Scio  is  followed  in  most  cases  by  the  indicative.  The  tenses  used 
are  the  future,  future  perfect,  present,  and  perfect.  In  the  contrary 
to  fact  conditions  in  which  the  subjunctive  is  used  after  scio,  this 
verb  was,  most  probably,  at  first  parenthetical.  By  continued  use  the 
condition  was  gradually  felt  to  be  dependent  on  the  verb.  This  then 

1)  Qiiaext.,  p.  24. 

2)  Kcio  followed  by   ut  is  found  in  Men.  434.     scio  ut  me  dices:  of. 
Verg.  Aen.  XII.  343  seq.  fids  ut  te  cunctis  —        —  praetulerim. 

3)  Parat.  Plant,  p.  5;  Kiihner,  Ansfuhrl.  Or.,  p.  578,  anm.  1.     "Wenn 
a  her  die  genmmten  Verhen    (i.  e.  scio.  etc.)    innerhalb  des  Satzes  stehen, 
so  gehoren  sie  nicht  hierher.     Denn  nlsdann  siiid  sie  als  parentetisch  ein- 
geschaltete  Ausdriicke  aufznfassen." 

4)  See  Lindskog,  Quaest.,  p.  25. 

5)  For  a  discussion  of  this  and  illustrations  of  scio  inserted  followed 
by  ace.  w.  inf.,  see  Becker,  Beiordn.  nnd  itnterordn.  Satsverb.,  p.  11,  note  4. 


31 

became  the  established  construction,  the  ace.  w.  inf.  being  never  used. 
This  explanation  seems  better,  because  more  simple,  than  that  given 
by  Paul  Earth. l) 

Verbs  of  perception,  video,  audio,  sentio,  and  others,  similarly  in- 
troduce a  subordinate  clause.  Under  these  verbs  two  classes  of  con- 
structions may  be  distinguished,  viz. :  a)  the  introductory  verb  is 
in  the  indicative,  generally  the  first  person  singular;  b)  the  intro- 
ductory verb  is  in  the  imperative  or  is  an  interrogative  second 
person;2)  e.  g.,  a)  video:  erepsti  primiter  de  pannibus;  b)  vide  sis: 
•nequo  Jiinc  abeas  1  origins;  cogitate:  -  -  labor  ille  a  vobis  recedet; 

audin  tu:  apud  Archibulum  ego  ero  argentarium. 

A  few  of  the  numerous  examples  of  these  classes  are  given  above. 
In  the  sentence  non  potest  sine  malo  fateri:  video,  the  first  proposition 
was  not  at  once  felt  to  be  dependent  on  video.  This  verb  was  an 
afterthought  and  was  added  as  such.  In  Hec.  770,  nosier  socer  video 
venit  the  insertion  of  the  verb  seems  to  indicate  that  its  subordinating 
function  was  partly  felt.  When  video,  sentio,  etc.,  come  first,  the 
sequence  of  thought  is  enough  to  indicate  that  the  following  proposi- 
tion is  dependent  on  the  preceding. 

In  the  second  class  we  distinguish  two  groups,  viz.:  a)  the  verb 
in  the  subordinate  clause  is  in  the  indicative;  and  b)  the  verb  in 
the  subordinate  clause  is  an  original  subjunctive,  either  alone  or 
with  ut  or  with  the  negative  ne.  The  first  group,  which  is  similar 
in  origin  to  the  class  described  above  (viz.  video,  etc.,  followed  by 
the  indicative)  may  be  illustrated  by  audin  tu:  apud  Archibulum 
ego  ero  argentarium;  and  videte:  iudicabit  inclutum  indicium  inter 
deas  iris  aliquis.  In  the  second  group  the  forms  vide,  audi,  viden, 
etc.,  take  the  place  of  an  interjection  and  serve  to  direct  the  attention 
of  the  hearer  to  what  is  to  be  said.3)  Still  it  cannot  be  said  with 
Becker  that  the  statement  following  this  form  was  independent.  The 
latter  proposition  in  ei  id  videto:  uti  aut  domino  siet,  is  an  exhortation 
or,  perhaps  better,  a  direction.  In  early  Latin  ut  with  the  subjunctive 
was  thus  used  in  independent  sentences,  (cf.  C.  I.  L.,  I.  196,  23. 

1)  De  inflnitivi  apud  scaenicoft  poctas  latinos  usu,  p.  48,  "Sententiae, 
quibus   continetur   coudieio,    qune   vocatur   Irrealis,    rectae   semper   stant, 
numquam  in  formam  orationis  obliquae  rediguntur ;   hoc  nimirum   fit  ea 
fie  causa,  quia  in  oratione  obliqua  coniuuctivus  non  certe  dignoscl  posset, 
utrum  propter  statura  condlcionalem  an  per  conseontionem  temporis  positus 
esset.  infinitivus  autem  modi  nota  oinnino  oareret  ob  eaniqne  rein  utriusque 
membri  status,  qui  dicitur  irrealis  obtegeretur  omuino  et  occultaretur." 

2)  That  the  forms  audin,  viden,  etc.,  are  used  similarly  to  the  impera- 
tive has  been  shown  by  LindskOg,  Qitacat.,  pp.  27,  and  40  ff. 

3)  Becker,  Beiordn.  und  unterordu.  Satzverb.,  p.  27,  "audi  dient  iihn- 
lich   wie  vide   dazu   den   Angeredeten   auf   das   Folgende   iiufmcrksani    zu 
inachen  und  wirel  dalier  niemals  mit  dem  ace.  c.  Inf.  verbunden.  sondern 
hat  den   Inhaltswatz  stets  als  unabhiingiges   Anssage-    (nuch  Frage-  oder 
Befehls-)    satz  bei  sich."     Cf.  Lindskog.  Quaest.,  pp.  40  ff. 


32 

HAICE  VTEI  IN  CONVENTIONID  EXDEICATIS,  "this  you 
are  to  announce  in  the  assembly").  Videto  is  an  additional  element 
further  emphasizing  the  direction.  Similarly  the  sentence  vide:  ne 
me  ludas  must  be  understood,  "see  to  it;  don't  you  fool  me". 

What  has  been  said  above  regarding  the  constructions  following 
verbs  of  knowing  and  perceiving  applies  also  in  many  particulars  to 
the  other  examples  given  above  after  verbs  of  thinking  and  saying. 
For  a  full  list  of  examples  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  work  by 
Becker.  S'chmalz  and  Lindskog  have  added  valuable  discussions  of 
the  origin  of  the  constructions  with  the  several  verbs.  Especially  is 
to  be  noted  Lindskog's  chapters,  "Parataxis  ad  sententias  impersona- 
liter  usurpatas,"1)  (i.  e.  certum  est,  etc.),  and  "Parataxis  ad  verbum 
quod  est  dico".2) 


PART  II. 

ADVERBIAL  CLAUSES. 

The  clauses  described  above  in  Part  L,  serve  the  function  of  com- 
plements to  certain  verbs  and  expressions.  They  have  the  value  of 
a  noun  and  may  represent  the  nominative  or  an  oblique  case.  In  the 
following  chapters  the  subordinate  proposition  stands  in  the  place 
of  an  adverb,  and  is  intimately  connected  with  the  principal  proposi- 
tion in  thought,  the  latter  containing  the  main  statement.3) 

These  clauses  are  of  later  origin  and  are  less  frequent.  The  concept 
of  adverbial  relation  is  not  formed  with  such  readiness  by  the  human 
mind  as  the  concept  of  subjective  and  objective  relation.  The  nature 
of  the  adverbial  relation  is,  moreover,  more  difficult  to  determine. 
Even  where  it  is  evident  that  an  adverbial  relation  exists  between 
two  propositions,  it  is  often  impossible  to  say  whether  it  is  conditional, 
causal,  temporal,  etc.  Each  of  the  following  six  chapters  will  include 
a  discussion  of  one  of  the  following  adverbial  relations :  final,  con- 
secutive, temporal,  conditional,  and  concessive.  In  Chapter  XI.  the 
comparative  and  relative  clauses  will  be  treated. 

CHAPTER  V. 

FINAL   ADVERBIAL    CLAUSES. 

From  the  following  examples  it  will  be  seen  that  this  paratactic 
construction  is  found  especially  after  verbs  of  motion,  viz.  co,  sequor, 

1)  Quaest.  pp.  29  ff.  and  41. 

2)  Ib.  pp.  31  ff. 

3)  Cf.   Substantive  Clauses,  p.  15. 


33 

etc.    Most  frequent  is  the  form  ibo  followed  by  the  future  indicative. 

A  number  of  other  verbs,  however,  are  also  followed  by  final  clauses.1) 

Asin.  382.    i,  puere,  pulta. 

Bacch.  1059.     cape  hoc  till  awum,  Clirusale:  i,  fer  filio. 

Caecilius,  Plocium  II,  178.    abi  intro  atque  istaec  aufer. 

Mil.  1185.     hue  venito  et  matris  verbis  Philocomasium  arcessito. 

Amph.  300.     dare  advorsum  fabulabor,  hie  auscultet,  quae  loquar. 

Amph.  949.    evocate  hue  Sosiam,  -  -  Blepharonem  arcessat. 

Andr.    511.      multa   concurrunt  simul   qui   coniecturam   hanc  nunc 

faciam. 
Aul.  500.    enim  mihi  quidem  aequomst  -         —  dari vehicla 

qui  vehar. 

Adelph.  549.    nunc  redeo:  si  forte  f rater  redierit  viso. 
Most.  774.     Eon  voco  hue  hominem? 
Heaut.  426.    ibo:  adloquar. 
Heaut.  170.    ibo:  visam  si  domist. 

Heaut.  608.    ad  Menedemum  ibo:  dicam  hanc  esse  captain  e  Caria. 
Capt.  126  seq.     ego  ibo  ad  fratrem  ad  olios  captivos  meos:  visam  ne 

nocte  hac  quippiam  turbaverint. 

Pers.  77.    nunc  hue  intro  ibo:  visam  hesternas  reliquias. 
Capt.  764.    sequere  hac:  redducam  te  ubi  fuisti. 
Most.  312.    conveniunt  manuplares  eccos:  praedam  participes  petunt 
Cure.  312.     da,  obsecro  hercle,  obsorbeam. 
Capt.  1003.     aut  anites  aut  coturnices  dantur  quicum  lusitent. 
Eun.  150.    id  amabo  adiuta  me:  quo  id  fiat  facilius. 
Epid.  267.     continue  arbitretur  uxor  tuo  gnato  atque  ut  fidicinam 

illam  quam  is  volet  liberare,  quae  illyw.  corrumpit  tibi,  ulciscare 

atque  ita  curetur,  usque  ad  mortem  ut  serviat. 
Stich.  207.     dicam  auctionis  causam:  ut  damno  gaudeant. 
Eun.  941,  seq.     te  -      -  ulciscar:  ut  ne  inpune  nos  inluseris. 
Bacch.  224.     veniat  quando  volt  atque  ita:  ne  mihi  sit  morae. 

The  final  sentence  is,  as  Gildersleeve  states,2)  ultimately  an  im- 
perative sentence.  An  imperative  or  an  independent  volitive  sub- 
junctive was  at  first  used  to  express  the  action  desired  on  the  part 
of  the  speaker.3)  The  final  sentence  in  its  simplest  form  is  found 
in  sentences  like  i,  puere,  pulta,  in  which  the  second  imperative  plainly 
denotes  the  purpose  in  the  mind  of  the  speaker  for  asking  the  servant 

1)  Cf.  Weissenhorn,  p.  13.  who  Rives  only  3  examples  from  Plautus. 

2)  A.  J.  P.  XXIII.     p.  254. 

3)  Cf.  Lane's  Gr.,  (New  York,  1903),  S  1540. 

Parataxis  in  early  latin.    3. 


34 

to  go  over  to  the  house  of  Demaenetus.1 )  When  it  was  the  desire  of 
the  speaker,  that  the  person  addressed  cause  a  third  person  to  perform 
some  action,  the  subjunctive  was  naturally  used,  since  the  Latin 
lacked  a  third  person  in  the  present  imperative.2)  The  following 

sentence,  evocate  line  Sosiam, Blepharonem  arcessat,  differs 

therefore,  from  those  just  described  onlv  in  that  the  performance  of 
the  command  is  transferred  from  the  second  person  to  the  third. 

Final  clauses  in  the  first  person  after  ibo  and  other  verbs,  did  not 
require  the  subjunctive.  That  is,  the  second  clause  is  not  an  original 
volitive  subjunctive.  Thus  dabo  in  Bacch.  366.  nunc  ibo:  erili  filio 
Jianc  fabricam  dabo  was  apprehended  at  first  merely  as  the  continua- 
tion of  the  action  of  the  speaker.  He  would,  therefore,  naturally  use 
the  future  indicative  in  this  proposition  as  in  the  preceding.  That  the 
latter  proposition  must  often  be  considered  as  first  expressing  the 
continuation  of  the  action  in  the  first  proposition  is  more  clearly 
seen  in  propositions  which  are  connected  by  the  coordinate  conjunc- 
tions et,  atque,  etc.,  e.  g.  Men.  331,  ibo  intro  et  dicam;  Ib.  1035,  nunc 
ibo  in  tabernam,  vasa  atque  argentum  tibi  referam;  Poen.  739,  ibo 
et  pultabo  ianuam?^) 

Purpose  clauses  introduced  by  the  relative  pronoun  quo,  (early 
form,  qui),  are  best  explained  by  a  volitive  origin.  We  may  thus 
understand  Capt.  1002,  seq.  patriciis  pueris  aut  monerulae  aut  anites 
aut  coturnices  dantur:  quicum  lusitent,  "jackdaws  or  ducks  or  quails 
are  given  to  patrician  children;  may  they  play  with  them"4)  Com- 
pare the  other  examples  of  the  same  class  given  above,  among  which 
qui,  (quo),  in  the  following  sentence  at  least,  is  used  as  a  conjunc- 
tion, enim  miJii  quidem  aequomst dari  — veliicla 

qui  vehar. 

The  established  usage  in  classical  times  is  derived  from  the  inde- 

1)  Cf.  Weisseuhorn,  Parat,  Plaut.,  p.  13.     "Sed  nolim  haec  exempla 
excitare;    nam   hi    imperativi  non   tain   motionis   quam   cohortationis   vim 
habere  rnihi  videntur  ut  quodam  modo  cognati  sint  cum  imperativis  pro 
interiectioue   positis,   age,   agite."     It   is,   however,   not   apparent    why   a 
distinction  should  be  made  between  Capt.  950,  for  instance,  ite  actutum: 
Tyndarum  hue  arcetssite,  and  Asin.  913,  ibo  ad  Diabolitm:  mandata  dicam 
facta.    Ite  is  as  much  a  verb  of  motion  as  ibo.     From  the  point  of  view 
of  the  master  of  the  slave  the  logical  alternative  of  ibo  is  i  or  ite.     In 
other  words,  the  master  will  either  say,  "I  shall  go",  or  "go  thou",  not 
"let  me  go".     Ite  is,  therefore,   from  the  nature  of  things  volitive  and 
not  equivalent  to  aye,  agite. 

2)  Because  of  the  infrequency  of  commands  in  the  third  person  pres., 
no  special   form  developed   in  Latin.     A  command  in  the  second  person 
differs,    however,   from   a    command   in   the  third  person   only   in   that   it 
affects  but  one  iiersou.     From  the  point  of  view  of  the  speaker  there  is 
no  difference. 

3)  Cf.  Sjogren.     DC  part.  cop.  apud  Plaut.  et  Terent.,  pp.  77  ff.  and 
Appendix.     Cf.  Balhis.   Gram.  Plant.,    (Berlin,  1884),  pp.  14  ff. 

4)  See  Delbriick,  Conjunctiv  tmd  Optativ,  pp.  59 — 62. 


35 

pendent  use  of  ut  with  a  volitive  subjunctive.1)  The  negative  form 
was  at  first  ut  ne  (non),  later  ne.1)  The  sentence  quoted  above, 
Stich.  207,  dicam  auctionis  causam:  ut  damno  gaudeant,  serves  to 
illustrate  this.  Originally  this  must  have  meant,  "I  shall  proclaim 
the  reason  of  the  auction ;  may  they  rejoice  in  my  misfortune".  This 
sentence,  however,  as  well  as  the  other  three  at  the  end  of  the  list 
given  above,  are  hypotactic  in  form.  It  is  because  of  the  predomi- 
nance of  ut  in  these  clauses,  that  also  other  final  clauses,  originally 
differently  expressed,  adopted  this  form  through  analogy.  The  origin 
of  negative  clauses  is  similar.  Ne  (or  non)  was  inserted  after  ut. 
Later  ne  was  itself  felt  as  a  conjunction  and  ut  was  omitted.2) 


CHAPTEE   VI. 

CONSECUTIVE    ADVERBIAL    CLAUSES. 

In  consecutive  clauses  in  early  Latin  the  original  indicative  was  still 
often  found.  These  clauses  retained  this  early  form  longer  than  the 
final  clauses  described  in  the  preceding  chapter.  The  subjunctive  was, 
however,  gradually  coming  into  use  from  the  use  of  the  potential  sub- 
junctive in  clauses  of  characteristic,  from  which  the  relative  clause  of 
result  originated,  and  from  the  use  of  the  subjunctive  in  independent 
sentences. 

The  following  examples  illustrate  the  use  of  the  early  indicative  or 
an  original  subjunctive. 

a)  Most.  154  seq.     parsimonia  et  duritia  discipulinae  alieis  eram: 

optumi  quique  expetebant  a  me  doctrinam  sibi. 
Most.  566.    hie  ad  me  it:  salvos  sum. 
Pseud.  75  seq.    pumiceos  oculos  habeo:  non  queo  lacnimam  exorare 

ut  expuant  unam  modo. 
Bacch.  85.    rapidus  fluvws  est  hie:  non  hac  temere  transiri  potest. 

b)  Capt.  503  seq.    ita  me  miserum,  -  -  reddiderunt:  vix  ex  gra- 

tulando  miser  iam  eminebam. 
Most.  146  seq.    ita  haec  tigna  —  -  putent:  non  videor  mihi 

sarcire  posse  aedes  meas. 

Mil.  1047.    nam  ita  me  occursant  multae:  meninisse  kaud  possum. 
Asin.  390.    ita  haec  moratast  ianua:  extemplo  ianitorem  clamat. 

1)  For  an  independent  volitive  use  of  ut  with  subj.  see  Cato,  II.  6. 
This  and  other  examples  are  quoted  by  Lindskog,  Qnnest.,  pp.  51  ff. ;  for  ne- 
clauses  see  Schnoor,  Quaest  Plaut.,  pp.  7  ff. 

2)  See  Lane  Gr.  §  1947.    For  a  discussion  of  ut  ne  and  ut  non  in  final 
and  consecutive  clauses  see   Lindskog,   Quaest.,   pp.   53  ff.,   and   Schnoor, 
Quaest.  Plaut.,  pp.  7  ff. 


36 

c)  Bacch.  332  seq.   tantas  divitias  habet:  nescit  quid  facial  auro. 
Capt.  227.  tanta  incepta  res  est:  hand  somniculose  hoc  agundumst. 
Cas.  341  seq.  at  ego  sic  agam:  coniciam  sortis  in  sitellam  et  sortiar. 
Men.  573.  morem  habent  hunc:  clientis  sibi  omnes  volunt  esse  multos. 
Mil.  801.    ille  eius  modist:  cupiet  miser. 

Pseud.  1250.     magnum  hoc  vitium  vinost:  pedes  captat  primum,  luc- 
tator  dolosust. 

d)  Men.  683.  mihi  tu  ut  dederis  pallam, numquam 

factum  reperies. 

Pers.  795.    quo  modo  me  hodie  vorsavisti:  ut  me  in  tricas  coniecisti? 

e)  Heaut.    675.  nil  tarn  difficilest:  quin  quaerendo  investigari  possiet. 
Heaut.  783.   ita  tu  istaec  tua  misceto:  ne  me  admisceas. 

The  above  quoted  sentences  fall  into  five  groups.  In  the  first  we 
have  two  simple  sentences  placed  side  by  side  with  no  indication  in 
language  of  their  relation.  These  sentences  stand  on  the  lower  limit 
of  parataxis.  It  is  only  from  the  thought  or  from  the  tone  in  which 
they  are  uttered,  that  we  can  say  that  one  of  the  simple  sentences 
expresses  result,  e.  g.  Most.  154  seq.  would  in  later  Latin  have  been 
expressed,  parsimonia  et  duritia  discipulinae  alieis  eram,  ut  optimi 
quique  expeterent  a  me  doctrinam  sibi;  and  Bacch.  85,  rapidus  fluvius 
est  hie,  ut  non  hoc  temere  transiri  possit. 

The  principal  proposition  often  has  an  adverb  (ita,  sic)  or  a  pro- 
noun (tantus,  hie,  is),  which  anticipates1)  the  result  in  the  second 
clause.  After  the  use  of  ut  with  the  subjunctive  became  established 
this  adverb  or  pronoun  was  considered  a  correlative  to  ut  expressing 
degree  or  quality,  e.  g.  Caes.  B.  G.  I.  33.  ipse  autem  Ariovistus 
tantos  sibi  spiritus,  tantam  adrogantiam  sumpserat,  ut  ferendus  non 
videretur. 

Of  the  adverbs  and  pronouns  of  degree  ita  and  tantus  are  of  very 
frequent  occurrence.  Sic  is  seldom  found.  In  the  third  group  hie  is 
more  often  found  than  is.  For  a  further  discussion  of  anticipatory 
adverbs  and  pronouns,  the  reader  is  referred  to  Chapter  XII. 

Schmalz2)  discusses  and  gives  examples  of  another  kind  of  con- 
secutive parataxis  in  which  the  subordinate  clause  originally  represent- 
ed a  question.  Thus  in  Men.  683  the  ut  first  introduced  a  question, 
viz.  mihi  -tu  ut  dederis  pallam,  etc.  ?  "you  gave  me  the  mantle  and. 
the  bracelet?"  The  answer  is  then  given,  nunquam  factum  reperies, 
"you  will  find  that  it  was  never  done."  Then  the  first  clause  was 

1)  Cf.  Weissenhorn,  Parat.  Plaut.  p.  14,  and  Bennett,  Corn.  Stud.  IX, 
(1892),  p.  10. 

2)  Lat.  Synt.,  pp.  400  ff. 


37 

felt  to  be  dependent,  and  the  sentence  was  understood,  "you  will  find 
that  it  was  never  done  that  you  gave  me  the  mantle,  etc."1) 

Quin2)  in  Heaut.  675  is  equivalent  to  qui  (abl.)+ne  (=non).  In 
later  Latin  it  was  used  with  the  force  of  ut  non.  In  this  sentence  the 
last  proposition  is  also  best  understood  as  an  original  question,  viz., 
quin  quaerendo  investigari  possit?  In  the  last  quoted  illustration  ne 
is  not  yet  a  conjunction,  but  is  equivalent  to  non. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

CAUSAL    CLAUSES. 

Causal  clauses  in  early  Latin  have  the  verb  in  the  indicative.  Two 
propositions  are  often  found  side  by  side  in  which  the  thought  is  so 
balanced,  that  it  is  difficult  to  determine  which  is  the  subordinate  or, 
if  this  is  possible,  to  determine  what  the  nature  of  the  subordination  is. 
In  the  first  group  sentences  of  this  character  are  given,  but  only  those 
in  which  it  is  reasonably  probable  that  the  relation  may  be  causal. 
The  second  group  will  include  sentences  in  which  the  causal  idea  is 
anticipated  in  the  primary  proposition  by  some  word,  usually  some 
adjective,  as  miser,  salvus,  stultus,  etc.  In  the  third  group  will  be 
given  examples  of  clauses  which  are  introduced  by  the  adverbs  ita 
and  sic  and  the  pronoun  tantus.3) 
a)  Most.  503  seq.  nunc  tu  hinc  emigra:  scelestae  hoe  sunt  aedes.*) 

Ib.  243  seq.     probus  homo  sum patronum  liberavi. 

Ib.  440  seq.     triennio  post  Aegypto  advenio  domum:  credo  exspec- 

tatus  veniam  familiaribus. 
Lucilius,    678,   M.      homines  ipsi  hanc  sibi   molestiam   ultro   atque 

aerumnam    offerunt:    ducunt    uxores,    producunt,    quibus    haec 

faciant5)  liberos. 

Amph.  836.     mulier  es:  audacter  iuras. 
Most.  514.    nil  ego  formido:  pax  mihist  cum  mortuis. 
Sextus   Turpilius,  Leucadia,  II.   109   seq.   E.     intercapedine   inter- 
•  ficior,  desiderio  differor:  tu  es  mihi  cupiditas,  suavitudo  et  mei 

animi  expectatio.  

1)  Of.  Hor.  Epist.  I.  18,  16. 

2)  Cf.  Chapter  III.,  p.  26. 

3)  No  attempt  will  be  made  to  explain  the  origin  of  quod,  quta,  quomam 
and  quando  with  the  indicative  and  the  subjunctive.     The  origin  of  these 
constructions,  which  are  found  in  early  writers  side  by  side  with  those 
mentioned  above,  is  still  obscure.     See  Zander,  De  relat.  pron.  ea  quae  est 
per   QUOD   et   ID   QUOD:   Zimmermann,    Gebraiich   der   Conjunctionen   QUOD 
und  QUIA  Im  alteren  Latein,  (Posen,  1880)  ;  Lindskog,  Quaest.  III.     Ratio 
hypotactica  in  secundariae  structura  pp.  60  ff . ;  Schmalz,  Lat.  8ynt.t  pp. 

4)  Cf.  C.  I.  L.  IV.  813.    otiosus  locus  hie  non  est :  discede  morator. 

5)  Others  read  faveant. 


38 

b)  Amph.  331.    salvos  sum:  non  me  videt. 
Capt.  284.    salva  res  est:  philosophatur  quoque 

Pseud.  80.    miser  sum:  argentum  nusquam  invenio  mutuom. 

Ib.  261.    stultus  es:  rem  actam  agis. 

Accius,  Atreus,  I.  214,  B.     vigilandum  est  semper:  multae  insidiae 

sunt  front's. 
Ennius,  Hecuba,  I.  164,  E.    lieu  me  miseram,  interii!  pergunt  lavere 

sanguen  sanguine. 

c)  Amph.  1056,  seq.     quid  agam  nescio:  ita  tanta  mira  in  aedibus 

sunt  facta. 
Trin.  543,  seq.     nemo  exstat  qui  ibi  sex  menses  vixerit:  ita  cuncti 

solstitiali  morbo  decidunt. 
Heaut.  978.    vah,  rogasse  vellem unde  mi  peterem  cibum: 

ita  nos  abalienavit. 
Capt.  464  seq.    nam  liercle  —  —  oculos  effodiam  lubens:  ita  malig- 

nitate  oneravit  omnis  mortalis  mihi. 
Andr.  761.    Di  te  eradicent:  ita  me  miseram  territas. 
Most.  546.    pergam  turbare  porro:  ita  haec  res  postulat. 
Caecilius  Stat.,  Synephebi,  II.   207,  E.     nee  quern  dolum  ad   eum 

aut  macliinam  commoliar  scio  quicquam:  ita  omnis  meos  dolos 

faUacias  praestigias  praestrinxit  commoditas  patris. 
Capt.  825.     non  ego  mine  parasitus  sum,  sed  regum  rex  regalior: 

tantus  ventri  commeatus  meo  adest  in  portu  cibus. 
Capt.  868.     te  hercle  mi  aequomst  gratias  agere  ob  nuntium:  tantum 

ego  nunc  porto  a  portu  boni. 
Ennius,  Thyestes,  I.  303  seq.     nolite ad  me  adire — : 

meo  tanta  vis  sceleris  in  corpore  haeret. 
Pseud.  1130.    malum  quod  tibi  di  dabunt:  sic  scelestu's?} 

It  is  not  always  possible,  as  was  stated  above,  to  be  certain  that  the 
idea  of  cause  is  present  in  loosely  jointed  sentences  like  those  in  the 
first  group.  The  nature  of  the  relation  can  be  known  only  from  the 
relative  order  of  the  propositions,  and  from  their  connection  in  the 
play.  Thus  the  sentence  nil  ego  formido,  pax  mihi  cum  mortuis, 
is  probably  causal  and  should  not  be  explained  as  consecutive,  i.  e. 
"I  am  at  peace  with  the  dead,  so  I  have  no  fear",  for,  in  consecutive 
sentences,  the  subordinate  clause  originally  followed  the  principal 
statement.  The  following  sentences,  however,  Eud.  1411,  bene  fads: 
gratiam  habeo  magnam,  which  is  quoted  by  Weissenhorn  as  causal  !), 


1)  Cf.  Pseud.  974.     salvos  sum:  iam  philoxophatiir. 

2)  Weissenhorn  P.  P.,  p.  1(5,  "pro  particula  ita  uno  loco  sic  adhibitum 
esse  inveni." 


39 

and  Most.  353,  erus  advenit  peregre:  pcriit  Tranio,  should  be  classed 
under  asyndetic  coordination,  that  is,  the  second  proposition  may  be 
understood  as  illative.,  viz.,  "You  act  well,  therefore  I  am  very  grate- 
ful", etc.2) 

In  the  second  group  the  causal  relation  is  clearer.  The  expres- 
sions salvos  sum,  miser  sum,  etc.,  presuppose  a  cause  which  is  given 
in  the  following  clause:  Verbal  expressions  like  interii,  peril,  odi, 
and  the  like  are  also  used  in  the  same  way. 

The  order  also  of  the  propositions,  as  just  stated,  is  often  helpful 
in  determining  their  relation.  The  sentence  from  Accius,  vigilandum 
est  semper:  multae  insidiae  sunt  bonis,  cannot  be  understood,  "There 
are  many  snares  set  for  the  righteous,  therefore  we  must  always  be  on 
the  alert",  for  in  illative  sentences  the  explanation  always  follows. 
Similarly  in  early  Latin,  causal  clauses,  whether  coordinate  or  hypo- 
tactic,  generally  follow  the  main  statement.  It  is  only  after  the  causal 
relation  is  fully  understood,  that  this  clause  precedes.  Even  to-day 
in  colloquial  language  our  reasons,  as  a  rule,  come  second.3) 

Clauses  introduced  by  ita  and  tantus  are  very  frequent.  These 
words  serve  almost  the  function  of  causal  conjunctions.  If  quod 
is  substituted  for  ita  in  Capt.  464  seq.,  there  is  no  change  except 
that  the  subordinate  relation  is  more  clearly  seen,  viz.  nam  hercle 
-  oculos  effodiam  lubens,  quod  malignitate  oneravit  omnis 
mortalis  mihi.  With  causal  ita-,  sic-,  etc.,  clauses  should  be  compared 
the  use  of  these  words  in  consecutive  clauses  described  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapter  (p.  35  ff.).  In  the  consecutive  sentence  ita,  etc., 
are  found  in  the  principal  proposition,4)  in  causal  sentences  in  the 
subordinate  clause.  This  may  be  well  illustrated  by  Andr.  937.  vix 

1)  Parat.  Plaut.  p.  17. 

2)  Great  care  must  be  taken  to  avoid  confusion   between  parataxis 
and  asyndeton.     Many  sentences  which  are  really  asyndetic  are  quoted 
in  current  textbooks  sis  examples  of  parataxis.     Thus  the  sentence  Most. 
39,  di  omnes  perdant:  (nam)  aboluisti  quoted  in  Fay's  Mostellaria,  p.  xliv, 
is  not  paratactic,  but  an  instance  of  causal  asyndeton.    Care  is  necessary, 
because  it  is  often  difficult  to  distinguish  coordination  from  subordination, 
and  because  asyndeton  is  very  frequent  and  is  found  in  all  kinds  of  coor- 
dination, viz.:  Copulative,  Most.  111.    venit  imbcr  (et)  lavit;  Adversative, 
Most.  49  seq.  tu  fortunatus,  (sod)  cyo  miser:  patiunda  Hunt,  mcum  bonum 
me,  (sed)  te  tuom  maneat  malum;  Disjunctive,  Heaut.  <>43.  melius  (aut) 
peius,  prosit   (aut)    obsit,  nil  vidcnt,  nisi  quod   lubct;  Causal,  Capt.  582. 
non   minim    facifi,    (nam)    cxt   miscrorum   Ht  malevolentes   Hint;    Illative, 
Most.  601.  nemo  dat:  age  (iyitur)   qtiidlitbct. 

3)  In  sentences  like,    (quod)    lectus  mortui  fertur,  diccbant  feretrum 
nostri,    (Varro  L.   L.  5,  1(56),  and    (qula)   mulier  en,  audacter  iuras  the 
second  clause  was  originally  added  with  illative  force.    The  first  sentence 
was,  therefore,  at  first  equivalent  to,  "A  lectus  was  brought  for  the  corpse; 
therefore  our  forefathers  called  it  feretrum.     Later  the  causal  concept  in 
the  first  clause  was  apprehended. 

4)  This  proposition  always  precedes.     See  pages  35  f. 


40 

sum  apud  me:  ita  animus  commotust  metu.  This  is  evidently  a 
causal  sentence.  If  the  arrangement  had  been,  ita  animus  commo- 
tust metu:  vix  sum  apud  me,  then  the  latter  clause  would  have  been 
equivalent  to  ut  vix  sim  apud  me. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

TEMPORAL  CLAUSES. 

The  closeness  of  relation  of  temporal,  conditional,  and  causal  con- 
cepts is  even  more  marked  than  that  of  consecutive  and  causal  men- 
tioned in  the  preceding  chapter.  For  this  reason  there  occur  in  early 
Latin  writers  numerous  paratactic  sentences,  which  are  difficult  to 
classify.  The  following  are  probably  all  temporal,  though  several 
may  be  understood  either  as  conditional,  or  concessive. 

Cure.  330.     video  tuom  sodalem:  argenti  rogo  uti  faciat  copiam. 
Andr.  297.    hanc  mi  in  manum  dat:  mors  continuo  ipsam  occupat. 
Rud.  151  seq.    quia  post  cenam,  credo,  laverunt  heri:  confracta  navis 

in  marist  illis. 
Lucilius,  XV.  504.  M.    cum  tecum  est,  quidvis  satis  est;  visuri  alieni 

sint  homines:  spiram,  pallam,  redimicula  promit. 
Bacch.  1023.    em  specta:  turn  scies. 
Capt.  338.    ausculta:  turn  -scies. 
Ep.  286.    scibis:  audi. 

The  preceding  examples  are  sufficient  to  illustrate  temporal  para- 
taxis. These  illustrations  show  the  most  primitive  form  of  sentence- 
connection.  The  sentences  are  joined  loosely,  and  may  in  some  cases 
be  coordinate.  This  form  of  speaking,  which  is  purely  colloquial,  is 
usually  found  in  lively  narration,  in  which  the  indicative  is  usually 
used.  An  excellent  example  of  this  mode  of  speaking1)  is  found  in 
Capt.  506.  rogo  syngraphum:  datur  mihi  ilico:  dedi  Tyndaro:  ille 
abiit  domum. .  Though  this  narration,  undoubtedly,  even  to-day,  could 
well  be  given  in  this  loose  way,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  the  subordinate 
relation  exists,  even  if  it  is  not  expressed  in  words.  The  sentence  is 
evidently  equivalent  to,  "When  I  ask  for  the  passport,  he  gives  it 
to  me  on  the  spot.  I  gave  it  to  Tyndarus  who  left  for  home."2) 

1)  Cf.  Weissenhorn,  Parat.  Plaut,  p.  22,  who  calls  this  construction 
"asyndeton   temporale." 

2)  Cf.  Strong,  Introd.  to  the  Study  of  the  Hist,  of  Lang.,    (London. 
1891 ) ,  pp.  121  ff. ;  who  after  showing  that  all  contiguous  clauses  are  more 
or  less  dependent  on  one  another,  continues :     "We  already  depart  a  step 
further  from  mere  coordination  in  the  case  where  —  in  grammatically  abso- 
lutely identical  manner  —  two  or  more  sentences  are  coordinated  in  a  story : 
as,  e.  g.,  /  arrived  at  twelve  o'clock;  I  went  to  the  hotel;  they  told  me 
there  was  not  a  single  room  to  be  had;  I  went  to  another  hotel,  etc.,  where 


41 

Often  when  the  relation  of  thought  is  not  clearly  seen,  a  sentence 
will  suggest  different  conceptions  of  the  relation  to  different  per- 
sons. Thus  Eun.  252.  is,  perhaps,  better  understood,  (si)  negat 
quis,  nego;  (si)  ait,  aio,  though  the  first  clauses  may  be  considered 
temporal,  viz.,  (quom)  negat  quis,  nego;  (quom)  ait,  aio. 

The  three  sentences  in  which  the  imperative  is  used  in  the  sub- 
ordinate clause  may  also  be  conceived  either  as  temporal  or  condi- 
tional or  even  as  causal,  viz.,  ausculta:  turn  scies,  may  mean,  "when 
you  listen,"  or,  "if  you  listen,  you  will  know,"  and  scibis:  audi  may 
be  understood  either,  "when  you  listen,"  or,  "if  you  listen,"  or,  "since 
you  listen,"  etc. 

Sentences  like  Ep.  337.   fecisti  iam  officium  tuum:  me  meum  nunc 

facere  oportet;  and  Pers.  272.  pensum confeci:  nunc  domum 

propero,  I  omit.1)  The  mere  presence  of  the  particles  iam  and  nunc 
do  not  make  them  temporal.  Sentences  of  this  kind  can  all  be  other- 
wise explained.  The  first  clause  in  Ep.  337  is  more  naturally  ex- 
plained as  causal,  or  the  latter  clause  as  illative,  viz.,  "since  you  have 
now  performed  your  duty,  it  is  now  meet  for  me  to  perform  mine," 
or  "you  have  now  performed  -  — ;  therefore  it  is  now  meet  - 

."     For  a  further  discussion  of  temporal  clauses  see  Schmalz, 

Lat.  Synt.  II.,  p.  341. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

CONDITIONAL    CLAUSES. 

In  the  early  stages  of  language  the  conditional  relation  of  one 
proposition  to  another,  which  later  was  expressed  by  the  correlatives  si 
sic  (si  -f-  ce),  si  -  -  turn,  or  merely  si,  was  not  indi- 
cated in  language.  For  the  subordinate  clause  was  used  a  command, 
an  exhortation,  a  question,  or  a  direct  statement.  Examples  of  these 
are  given  below,  as  well  as  of  clauses  introduced  by  ni,  and  by  the 
preposition  dbsque,  and  instances  of  si  -  -  sic  (turn),  which 
still  show  traces  of  the  early  correlative  use. 

a)  Merc.  770.    eras  petito:  ddbitur. 

Ep.  24.    operam  da:  opera  reddetur  tibi. 

Phorm.  410.    abduce  lianc:  minas  quinque  acdpe. 

each  sentence  to  a  certain  extent  expresses  a  cause  or  defines  the  time  of 
occurrence  of  the  fact  which  is  mentioned  in  the  next.  Now  though  this 
additional  meaning  is  clearly  there,  it  is  a  meaning  which  at  the  moment 
of  uttering  each  clause  is  not  necessarily,  nay,  not  probably  clearly  present 
in  the  speaker's  mind:  we  might  more  fully  and  correctly  but  perhaps 
more  clumsily  say,  /  -  — ;  and  when  I  had  -  —;  but  when  - 

and  because — ." 

1)  Weissenhorn  considers  these  temporal,  saying,  "neque  ab  hac  struc- 

tura  sunt  aliena." 


42 

Pacuvius.  Ann.   lud.  I.  30,  R.  die  quid  faciam:  quod  me  moneris. 

effectum  dabo. 
Adelph.  123  seq.     postremo  aut  desine  aut  cedo  quemvis  arbitrum: 

te  plura  in  hoc  re  peccare  ostendam. 
Heaut.  487.     dare  dcnegaris:  ibit  ad  illud  illico. 
Rud.  1007.     verbum  etiam  adde  unum:  iam  in  cerebro  colaphos  ab- 

strudam  tuo. 
True.  614.     tange  modo:  iam  ego  te  hie  agnum  faciam  et  medium 

distruncabo. 

b)  Phorm.  265.    unum  cognoris:  omnis  noris. 

Adelph.  120.    fores  ecfregit:  restituentur,  discidit  vestem:  resarcictur. 

Amph.  995.    amat:  sapitD 

Most.  639.      euge,    Philolaches   patrissat:   iam    homo    in    mercatura 

vortitur. 

Mil.  711.    sacrificant :  dant  inde  partem  mihi  maiorem  quam  sibi. 
Most.  873.     boni  sunt:  bonust;  improbi  sunt:  malus  fit.2) 

c)  Pseud.  1015.    argentum  des:  abducas  mulierem. 

Most.  912.     nunc  ferat  sex  talenta  magna  argenti  pro  istis  praesen- 

taria:  numquam  accipiam. 
Pers.  836.    nam  hercle  absque  me  foret  et  meo  praesidio:  hie  faceret 

prostibilem  propediem. 
Men.  1022.     nam  absqite  te  esset:  hodie  numquam  ad  solem  occasum 

viverem. 
Capt.  754  seq.    quod  absque  hoc  esset,  qui  mihi  hoc  fecit  palam  usque 

offrenatum  suis  me  ductarent  dolis. 
Phorm.  188.     absque  eo  esset:  recte  ego  mihi  vidissem. 

Lucilius,  XXVI.  685.  M.  si  secubitet,  sic  quoque non  impetret. 

Liv.  Andron.,  Achilles,  I.  1,  R.   si  malos  imitabo,  turn  tu  pretium  pro 

noxa  dabis. 

XII  Tab.  I.3)  ni  it:  antestamino. 
Ib.  I.     ni  pacunt:   in  comitio  aut  in  foro  ante  meridiem  caussam 

coiciunto. 
Ib.  3.    ni  suo  vivit:  libros  f arris  endo  dies  dato. 

It  has  already  been  stated  that  sentences  like  those  found  in  the 
first  group,  in  which  the  imperative  is  used,  may  often  be  understood 
either  as  temporal  or  conditional.4)  In  the  sentences  quoted  here, 

1)  Cf.  Bacch.  1165.     si  amant,  sapienter  faciunt,  which  is  frequently 
quoted  in  connection  with  this  sentence. 

2)  The  reading  in   Goetz  and  Schoell  is  t  Bonis  sum  improbis  sum, 
malus  fiiit 

3)  Schoell,    Rudolf,   Legis   Duodecim   Tabularum  Reliquiae    (Leipzig. 
1866). 

4)  See  Chapter  VIII.  esp.  p.  41. 


43 

however,  the  conditional  idea  is  fairly  clear.  The  meaning  of  eras 
petito:  dabitur  cannot  very  well  be  made  anything  else  than,  "if  you 
ask  for  it  to-morrow,  it  will  be  given,"  and  the  sentence  abduc  hanc: 
minas  quinque  accipe  is  plainly  equivalent  to  quinque  minas  tibi  dabo, 
si  hanc  abduxerisD  These  sentences,  whether  in  the  form  of  a  com- 
mand or  a  prohibition,  have  been  understood  as  elliptical.  It  has 
been  supposed  that  the  condition  proper  is  left  out,  and  that  the 
sentence  above,  for  instance,  should  be  understood,  "ask  for  it  to- 
morrow, if  you  do,  it  will  be  given."2)  To-day,  when  conditional  re- 
lation is  so  clearly  felt  that  the  use  of  if  is  not  always  necessary,  it  is 
true  that  these  sentences  may  be  regarded  as  elliptical.  It  is,  however, 
hazardous  to  judge  the  phenomena  of  early  language  by  our  standards. 
The  complexity  of  our  language  hampers  us,  when  we  attempt  to 
understand  the  primitive  simplicity  of  language.  It  is  not  probable 
that  sentences  of  this  kind,  viz.,  "do  it;  you  will  be  saved,"  and, 
"don't  do  it;  you  will  be  hurt,"  were  at  first  understood  as  con- 
ditional. The  command  or  prohibition  was  first  given.  Then  the 
following  proposition  was  added  as  a  reason  why  the  person  addressed 
should  act  or  refrain  from  acting. 

Besides  commands  in  the  imperative,  questions  or  direct  state- 
ments in  the  indicative  were  frequently  used  to  indicate  the  con- 
dition. Attempts  have  been  made  to  show,  on  the  one  hand,  that  all 
conditional  clauses  of  this  kind  were  originally  questions,  and  on 
the  other,  that  they  were  all  direct  statements.3)  Most  probable  is 
that  both  modes  of  expression  were  used.  Eun.  252,  for  instance, 
is  best  understood  to  have  originated  from  a  question,  viz.,  negat 
quis?  nego;  ait?  aio,  while  Most.  873  need  not  necessarily  be  thus 
understood.  It  is  here  more  natural  to  suppose  that  the  statement 
boni  sunt  is  followed  upon  reflection  by  bonust;  cf.  the  so-called 
rhetorical  parataxis  in  later  writers,  e.  g.  Horace  Ars  Poet.  25 — 26, 
brevis  esse  laboro :  obscurus  fio.  In  the  developed  conditional  period, 
all  uses  of  the  indicative  in  the  protasis  have  been  derived  from  the 
above  construction. 

The  use  of  the  subjunctive  has  similarly  been  derived  from  the 
independent  use  of  the  subjunctive  in  paratactic  sentences.4)  The 

1)  See  Elmer's  note  to  this  line. 

2)  Cf.  Nutting  A.  J.  P.  24   (1003),  p.  35,  who  iu  commenting  on  the 
sentence.  Don't  do  it;  yon  will  In;  hurt,  says,  "The  first  clause  Is  not  con- 
ditional     It  is  :i  prohibition.     The  condition  is  understood,  i.  e.  If  you  do 
that,  you  will  he  hurt,  don't  do  it."    Cf.  Chapter  XII.,  p.  53. 

3)  Cf.    Ktihner.   1.   c.,   p.    760,  c.   and   Anmerk.   4;   Weissenhorn,  1.   c. 
p.  19;  and  Allen  and  Grecnough's  Gram.   (Boston,  1004),  8511. 

4)  Cf.  A.  G.  Gram.,  §511.     See,  however.  Nutting,  A.  J.  P.,  24  (1903), 

pp.  25 39,   who  questions  the  current  theories   which  refer  the  protasis 

(I.  e.  the  subjunctive)  to  a  volitive  or  like  origin. 


44 

i 

sentence,  nunc  ferat  sex  talenia  magna  argenti  pro  istis  praesentaria: 
numquam  accipiam  was  originally  equivalent  to,  "let  him  now  bring 
six  talents,  etc.,  I  will  never  receive  them,"  and  argentum  des:  ab- 
ducas  mulierem,  was  first  understood,  "pay  the  money;  you  may  take 
the  woman  away." 

To  these  clauses  belong  also  those  which  are  introduced  by  the 
preposition  absque  in  conditions  contrary  to  fact.1)  This  usage  had 
in  the  time  of  Plautus  and  Terence  acquired  an  established  form,2) 
and  the  clause  introduced  by  absque  was  used  almost  like  a  clause 
introduced  by  si. 

The  ni  and  si (sic)  sentences  given  above,  may  probably 

be  understood  as  hypotactic.  We  can,  however,  still  see  how  the  con- 
ditional clause  became  subordinate.  In  sentences  like  ni  it:  antesta- 
mino,  the  ni3)  unquestionably  was  at  first  a  pure  negative  and  the 
sentence  was  equivalent  to  non  it,  etc.,  and  thus  ought  to  be  grouped 
with  the  sentences  given  under  b)  above. 

The  early  use  of  si sic  (turn,  Ha),  thus thus,4) 

may  be  illustrated  by  the  two  sentences  given  above,  e.  g.  si  malos 
imitabo:  turn  tu  pretium  pro  noxa  dabis,  i.  e.,  thus  I  shall  imitate  the 
wicked,  then  you,  etc.  It  is  through  its  use  with  the  correlatives  sic, 
ita,  turn,  that  si  (originally  demonstrative)  acquired  conditional  force. 
Lindskog  gives  the  following  sentences  as  illustrations  of  the  early  use 
of  si,  without  a  correlative,  Asin.  699,  vehes  pol  hodie  me,  si  quidem 
hoc  argentum  ferre  speres,  and,  Mil.  571.  ne  tu  hercle,si  te  di  amentp) 
linguam  conprimes.  The  first  sentence  could  then  be  translated, 
"By  Pollux,  you  will  carry  me  to-day,  in  that  way  indeed  may  you 
hope  to  carry  this  money".  The  clause,  si  te  di  ament,  is  explained 
similarly  in  analogy  with  Heaut.  463.  sic  me  di  amabunt.®) 


1)  Cf.  Ribbeck,  Beitrdge  zur  Lehre  von  den  Latein.    Partikeln.     (Leip- 
zig, 1869),  p.  23;  and  Jordan,  Kritische  Beitrdge  zur  Geschichte  der  Lat. 
Sprache,  (Berlin,  1879),  pp.  313  ff. 

2)  Jordan,  p.  313.    "Die  Grundform  der  plautinischen  und  terenzischen 
Gebrauche  ist  eine  feste: 

f  me  )       (  esset    )       (  facerem,  -es,  -et,  etc, 
absque     j  fe   f       j  foret    j       j  feciSSem. 

Der  Vordersatz  ist  stehts  impersonell ;  die  Grundform  ist  also  zu  iiber- 
setzen:  'ohne  mich  (dich,  diese  Sache)  ware  es  (wiirde  es  sein),  ich  (du, 
u.  s.  w.)  thate  es  (thatest  es  u.  s.  w.)',  oder  dem  Sinne  nach:  'ware  ich 
nicht  da  (dagewesen)'  ". 

3)  For  a  discussion  of  this  see  Lindskog.  Beitrdge  zur  Geschichte  der 
Satzstellung  im  Latein,   (Lund,  189G),  p.  20. 

4)  Cf.  the  earlier  German,  so  —         —  so,  e.  g.  so  du  willst.  so  veer  den 
wir  fiehcn. 

5)  Others  read  amant. 

6)  Cf.  Lindskog,  Quaest.,  pp.55  ff.,  and  De  enunt.  ap.  Plaut.  et  Ten. pp. 
28  ff. ;  also  Schmalz.  Lat.  Synt.,  p.  410,  §  335. 


45 
CHAPTBE  X. 

CONCESSIVE   CLAUSES. 

The  simplest  form  of  concessive  sentences  are  those  in  which  the 
concessive  idea  is  expressed  by  the  imperative  and  in  which  the  main 
proposition  is  found  in  the  future  indicative.  The  similarity  of  these 
in  construction  to  conditional  and  temporal  clauses,  in  which  the 
imperative  is  used,  often  makes  identification  difficult. 

Two  propositions  expressing  fwo  opposing  ideas  are  often  put  in 
the  indicative.  In  these  is  seen  the  close  relation  existing  between 
coordinate  adversative  and  concessive  sentences.  This  class  of  para- 
tactic  concessive  sentences  is  by  far  the  most  numerous. 

In  addition  to  illustrations  of  the  above  mentioned,  the  following 
list  will  contain  sentences  showing  the  earlier  use  of  quamquam 
quamvis,  and  licet  in  independent  sentences. 

a)  Rud.  1401.  vel  hercle  enica:  non  tacebo. 

Ep.  36.    sine  perdat:  alia  apportdbunt  ei  Nerei  filiae. 

b)  Capt.  615.     ornamenta  absunt:  Aiacem,  hunc  quom  vides,  ipsum 

vides. 

Capt.  575  seq.  et  tu  quidem  servos  es:  liber  fuisti. 
Beaut.  79.    rectumst  ego  ut  faciam:  non  est,  te  ut  deterream. 
C.   I.   L.,   I.    1010.     FORTUNA-SPONDET-MULTA-MULTIS: 

PRAESTAT  •  NEMINT. 
Men.  689.    tute  uliro  ad  me  detulisti;  dedisti  earn  dono  mini:  eandem 

nunc  reposcis. 
Trin.  292.     nam  hi  mores  maiorum  laudant:  eosdem  lutitant  quos 

conlaudant. 

c)  Merc.  287.     quamquam  negotiumst,  si  quid  veis,  Demipho,  non 

sum  occupatus  umquam  amico  operam  dare. 

Adelph.  205.    id  quoque  —          -  possum  ferre,  quamquam  iniuriumst. 
Merc.  687.     quamveis  insipiens:  poterat  persentiscere. 
Bacch.  82.     locus  hie  apud  nos,  quam  vis  subito  venias,  semper  liber 

est. 

Trin.  554.    quam  vis  malam  rem  quaeras,  illic  reperias. 
Asin.  718.     licet  laudem  Fortunam  tamen  ut  ne  Salutem  culpem. 
Capt.  303.    memini  quom  dicto  haud  audebat:  facto  nunc  laedat  licet. 

The  first  two  sentences  quoted  show  that  the  imperative  was  used 
,in  the  early  language  to  express  concession.     The  fact  that  the  im- 
perative was  also  used  in  clauses,  which  must  be  understood  as  temporal 
and  conditional,  and  the  fact  that  to-day  we  are  often  at  a  loss  to 


46 

determine  just  what  was  the  relation  between  the  two  simple  sen- 
tences, show  that  there  existed  in  the  primitive  mind  no  clear  concept 
of  any  such  relation.  The  first  sentence,  however,  (Eud.  1401)  is,  as 
Weissenhorn  has  shown,  plainly  equivalent  to  licet  tu  me  enices,  non 
tacebo.  In  the  second  example  sine  perdat,  which  itself  is  parataxis 
stereotyped,  is  equivalent  to  an  imperative.1) 

These  sentences,  as  well  as  the  following  in  group  b),  represent 
the  most  primitive  form  of  parataxis.  It  is  impossible  to  say,  whether 
they,  at  the  time  they  were  written,  were  conceived  as  compound  or 
complex.  It  is,  however,  easy  for  us  in  all  these  sentences  to  understand 
one  proposition  as  concessive,  e.  g.  Heaut.  79,  (etsi)  rectumst,  ego  ut 
faciam :  non  est,  te  ut  deterream,  but  it  is  equally  easy  to  suppose  that 
the  two  propositions  are  coordinate,  one  being  adversative,  e.  g.  C.I.L., 
I.  1010,  fortuna  spondet  multa  multis,  (sed)  praestat  nemini.  The 
former  is  clearly  a  more  complicated  concept,  and,  therefore,  later 
in  being  formed,  that  is  to  say,  sentences  which  at  first  were  con- 
sidered to  be  adversative,  were  later  understood  as  concessive.  This  is 
corroborated  by  the  fact  that  in  the  early  Latin  writers  numerous 
instances  of  these  sentences  occur  which  are  syndetic,  but  which  still 
may  be  understood  as  belonging  to  concessive  sentences.2) 

In  some  sentences3)  this  adversative  or  concessive  concept  is  em- 
phasized by  certain  words  in  both  clauses,  serving  as  correlatives,  viz., 

is idem,  hi -  eosdem,  tu ego,  etc.,  e.  g. 

Trin.  292.  nam  hi  mores  maiorum  laudant:  eosdem  lutitant  quos  con- 
laudant. 

No  class  of  subordinate  sentences,  perhaps,  show  more  clearly  than 
the  concessive  the  development  of  parataxis  to  hypotaxis.  The  reason 
for  this  is  partly  that  the  paratactic  mode  of  expressing  concession 
with  quamquam,  quam  vis,  licet,  etc.,  retained  until  a  very  late  period 
its  original  force,  and  partly  that  these  verbs  survive  into  classical 
times  as  concessive  conjunctions.  Quamquam  was  at  first  an  indefinite 
adverb  meaning  "ever  so  much",  or,  "however  much".  This  early 
meaning  can  still  be  seen  in  the  sentences  quoted  above  under  c). 
The  sentence,  id  quoque  possum  ferre,  quamquam  iniuriumst,  thus 
at  first  meant,  "this  also  I  can  endure:  it  is  ever  so  much  unfair!" 
When  the  concessive  force  of  the  exclamation  was  recognized,  quam- 
quam  assumed  the  force  of  a  conjunction. 

1)  Cf.  sine  vcniat  and  other  examples  of  this  kind.     See  Chapter  I., 
pp.  17.  and  20  ff. 

2)  E.  g.  Pseud.  421.    atque  id  iam  pridem  scnsi  et  subolebat  mihi,  sed 
dissimulabam ;  Most.  93  seq.  atque  hoc  hand  videtur  veri  simile  voMs;  at 
ego  id  faciam  ita  esse  ut  credatis;  Bacch.  463;  Capt.  71.    Cf.  Weissenhorn, 
page  20. 

3)  Trin.  292;  Men.  689;  Aul.  667;  Asin.  408;  Amph.  816. 


47 

Similarly  quamvis  or  quam  vis  was  also  at  first  used  in  independent 
sentences.  The  early  use  is  well  seen  in  Men.  318.  quam  vis  ridiculus 
est,  ubi  uxor  non  adest,  "he  is  as  jolly  as  you  please,  when  his  wife  is 
not  near".  This  early  force  is  still  seen  in  numerous  instances  in 
early  Latin.  Quam  vis  was  at  first  used  either  with  the  indicative 
or  with  the  subjunctive,  until  the  latter  became  the  rule  because  of 
the  frequent  occurrence  of  the  phrase  quam  vis,  "as  much  as  you 
please",  in  paratactic  sentences,  of  which  one  member  was  an  inde- 
pendent optative  subjunctive.!)  Thus  Bacch.  82.  locus  hie  apud  nos, 
quam  vis  subito  venias,  semper  liber  est,  is  equivalent  to  "you  may 
come  as  suddenly  as  you  please;  this  place  of  ours  is  always  open". 
In  this  sentence,  however,  though  the  literal  meaning  of  quam  vis 
was  not  lost  sight  of,  it  is  probable  that  the  concessive  force  was 
already  felt.  The  very  fact  that  one  proposition  is  inserted  in  an- 
other tends  to  show  that  it  was  understood  as  subordinate.2) 

The  development  of  licet  from  an  impersonal  verb  to  a  concessive 
conjunction  went  on  side  by  side  with  the  development  of  quamquam 
and  quam  vis.  Its  early  use  is  illustrated  by  the  last  two  sentences 
above.  Compare  with  these  the  use  of  licet  in  substantive  clauses.3) 


CHAPTER  XI. 

RELATIVE    AND    COMPARATIVE    CLAUSES. 

The  statement  of  Weissenhorn  that  no  certain  indication  of  para- 
tactic  construction  of  relative  and  comparative  clauses  is  found  in 
Latin,4)  was  objected  to  by  Becker  in  the  work  which  he  began.5) 
It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  relative  and  the  comparative  sen- 
tence should  offer  no  exception  to  the  rule,  still  it  must  be  admitted 
that  instances  of  parataxis  are  here  few  and  not  easily  determined. 

1)  The  optative  subjunctive  was  later  also  used  without  quamvis  to 
express  a  concession,  e.  g.  Cic.  Verr.  V.  4,  sit  fur,  sacrilcflits:  at  est  bonus 
imperator.     Cf.  A.  G.  Gr.  §  526,  where  this  subjunctive  is  said  to  be  of 
hortatory  origin,  and  Bennett,  Lat.  Lang.,  p.  219. 

2)  Cf.  Lindskog,  Beitrdge  zur  Oeschichte  der  Satzstellunff  im  Latcin, 
(Lund,  1896),  p.  36,  "Es  1st  aber  selbverstandlich,  dass  Nebensiitze  jeder 
Art  allmahlich  in  die  Hauptssitze  eingeschoben  werden.     Je  mehr  der  ur- 
sprungliche,  parataktische  Charakter  verswindet  und  die  Nebensiitze  nur 
wie  Satzteile  des  iibergeordueten  Satzes  hervortreten,  je  natiirlicher  ergiebt 
sich,  dass  sie  allmahlich  den  Platz  derselben  einnehmen." 

3)  See  Chapter  I.,  p.  20.    This  subject  has  been  discussed  by  Kriege, 
H.,  De  cnuntiatis  concessivis  apud  Plautum  ct  Tcrcntium,   (Halle,  1884), 
p.  47,  and  Lindskog,  Quaest,  p.  51. 

4)  Parat.  Plaut..  p.  4.    "Seiungenda  sunt  a  nostra  quaestione  enuntiata 
comparatlva  et  relativa,  quippe  quae  certis  exeraplis  purntnctlcis  carere 
mihi  videantur." 

5)  Beiordn.  u.  untcrordn.  Satzverb.,  p.  6,  note  1,  "allein  es  lassen  sich 
doch  wie  ich  spater  zeigen  werde.  Spuren  der  Beiordnung  auch  bel  dlesen 
Satzen  (i.  e.  comparativa  et  relativn)  erkennen." 


48 

The  necessary  conclusion  in  the  case  of  the  former  is,  that,  while  para- 
taxis in  the  clauses  described  in  the  preceding  chapters  was  still  in  its 
infancy,  the  relative  was  already  a  real  relative  and  not  a  demonstra- 
tive, or  an  interrogative,  or  indefinite  pronoun.  This  is  also  borne 
out  by  the  Sanskrit  and  the  Greek,  as  has  been  pointed  out  with 
clearness  by  Miles.1)  Although  Sanskrit  syntax  was  in  a  more  primi- 
tive state  of  development  than  Latin  syntax  of  100  B.  C.,  no  trace 
of  any  original  or  early  meaning  of  the  relative  can  be  found.  Specu- 
lations as  to  the  origin  of  the  relative  are,  therefore,  with  our  present 
knowledge  futile.  Plausible  arguments  have  been  given  to  prove 
both  that  quod,  for  instance,  in  Phorm.  947.  argentum  quod  habes 
condonamus  te  is  in  origin  an  adjective  interrogative  pronoun,  and 
that  it  is  an  indefinite  pronoun.  S'chmalz's  explanation  is,  "argen- 
tum. Quod  argentum?  Habes!  Condonamus  te,  d.  h.  der  Sprechende 
beginnt:  argentum,  er  wird  unterbrochen :quod  argentum?  antwortet 
darauf,  habes,  und  fiihrt  dann  den  mit  argentum  begonnen  Satz  durch 
condonamus  te  zu  Ende."  According  to  the  other  theory  the  sentence 
was  originally  equivalent  to  argentum  aliquod  habes:  condonamus  te.2) 
If  one  of  these  theories  is  to  be  adopted,  the  latter  seems  to  me  the 
most  natural.  The  process  of  uniting  the  words  of  two  speakers  seems 
too  bizarre  and  is  as  Morris  remarks  a  phenomenon  entirely  unknown 
in  language. 

In  addition  to  examples  of  the  kind  given  above  in  which  a  relative 
has  been  traced  back  to  an  interrogative  or  an  indefinite  pronoun, 
colloquial  sentences  occur  in  which  an  independent  clause,  either  with 
or  without  a  demonstrative,  takes  the  place  of  a  relative  clause.  A 
few  examples  of  each  of  these  groups  will  suffice  for  illustration. 

The  relative  pronouns  in  the  following  sentences  may  be  explained 
as  either  originally  interrogative  or  indefinite  according  to  which  01 
the  above  given  theories  is  adopted. 

Cato,  R.  R.  CXLVIII,  2.    dominus  vino,  quid  volet,  faciat. 
Cist.  703.     quod  periit:  periit. 

Pers.  75.    sed  sumne  ego  stultus  qui  rem  euro  publicam? 
Bacch.  992.    verum  qui  satis  videat,  grandes  satis  sunt. 
Cato,  R.  R.  VI.  4.    qui  locus  vino  optimus  dicetur  esse  et  ostentus  soli 
aminnium  minusculum  et  geminum  eugeneum conserito. 

1)  Comparative  Syntax  of  Latin  and  Greek,  (Cambridge,  1893),  Part. 
I.,  pp.  22  ff.  and  Appendix  v. 

2)  For  these  theories  see  Zimmerman,   Gebrauch  der  Conjunctionen 
QUOD  und  QUIA  im  dlteren  Latein,  (Posen,  1880)  ;   Schmalz,  Lot.  Synt.,  p. 
369;  Bach,  De  Attractione  quae  dicitur  inversa,   (Strassburg,  1888)  ;  and 
Lindskog's  criticism  of  Bach  in  Eranos  I.,  (1896),  pp.  48  ff . ;  also  Quaest., 
p.  62 ;  Morris,  Lat.  Synt.,  pp.  107  ff. ;  Sitzungsbericht  d.  Kais.  Akad.  d.  Wiss. 
(1870),    p.    77;    Deecke,    Die    ffriechischen    und    lateinischen    Nebensatze, 
(Buchsweiler  program,  1887),  p.  39. 


49 

Most.  244.    quae  pro  me  causam  diceret:  patronum  liberavi. 

Aul.  716.     hominem  demonstretis:  quis  earn  abstulerit. 

Novius,   Tabellaria,   II.   86,   E.     qui  habet  uxorem  sine   dote,    [ei] 

pannum  positum  in  purpura  est. 
Phorm.  947.    argentum  quod  liabcs,  condonamus  te. 

The  statement  found  in  grammars  that  the  relative  pronoun  is  n  ?VF~ 
omitted  in  Latin  is  not  strictly  correct.  Numerous  instances  are  found 
both  in  colloquial  and  more  careful  language,  in  which  the  relative 
is  either  omitted  or  replaced  by  a  demonstrative.  The  following  ex- 
amples will  serve  to  illustrate  this. 

Capt.  506.     dedi  Tyndaro:  ille  abut  domum. 

Pacuvius,  Chryses,  I.  93,  E.    mater  est  terra:  ea  parit  corpus. 

Most.  983  seq.    unus  istic  servos  est  sacerrumus,  Tranio:  is  vel  Her- 

culi  conterere  quaestum  potest. 
Most.  257.     nunc  adsentatrix  scelestast:  dudum  advorsatrix  erat. 

This  loose  way  of  expressing  the  relative,  found  along  side  of  the 
fully  developed  hypotactic  relative  clause,  is  not  offered  as  an  explana- 
tion of  the  early  paratactic  mode  of  expression,  but  to  emphasize  the 
fact  that  the  human  mind,  when  not  bound  by  rules,  will  tend  to 
depart  from  an  established  formal  mode  of  expression  to  one  that  is 
more  simple.  The  characters  in  a  play  may  neglect  careful  observance 
of  grammatical  rules.  Poetic  license,  again,  allowed  Vergil  to  write 
in  the  same  way,  e.  g.  Aen.  I.  12,  urbs  antiqua  fuit:  Tyrii  tenuere 
coloni,  and  Ib.  530,  est  locus:  Hesperiam  Grai  cognomine  dicunt. 

No  attempt  will  be  made  here  to  discuss  parataxis  in  Comparative 
clauses  with  any  completeness.  A  few  sentences  will,  however,  be  given 
to  show  that  traces  exist  of  their  paratactic  origin. 

Ep.  175.     quoius  quotiens  sepulchrum  vides:  sacruficas. 

Eud.  1301.    quanta  magis  extergeo:  —  -  tenuius  fit. 

Eun.  474.    ita  me  di  ament:  honestust. 

Most.  170.    ita  me  di  ament:  lepidast  Scapha. 

Mil.  974.    quin  tu  illam  iube  abs  te  abirc  quo  lubet?  sicut  soror  eius 

hue  gemina  venit  Ephesum. 
Phorm.  591.    ego  hominem  callidiorem  vidi  neminem  quam  Phormio- 

nem. 
Amph.  682.     quid  tu  me  —  —  sic  salutas  -  -  quasi  (quam 

-f-si)  dudum  non  videris? 

Merc.  897.    amicior  mihi  nullus  vivit:  atque  is-  est. 
Mil.  1251.    si  parem  sapientiam  habet  ac  formam. 

Traces  of  parataxis  are  shown  in  the  first  four  sentences  by  the 
omission  of  the  correlatives,  totiens,  ianto,  and  ut.  In  Eun.  474,  and 

Parataxis  in  early  latin.    4. 


50 

Most.  170,  for  instance,  the  first  propositions  are  independent  in  form, 
ita  being  frequently  used  in  ejaculations,  (cf.  Most.  398.  ita  ille  faxii 
lupiter).  To  these  were  added  the  independent  clauses,  sacruficas, 
and  lepidast  Scapha.  When  the  two  simple  sentences  were  felt  to  be 
correlative  ut  introduced  the  second  clause,  e.  g.  Aul.  496.  ita  me  di 
amabunt,  ut  ego  Jiunc  ausculto  lubens,  "so  may  the  gods  help  me,  as 
I  am  glad  to  hear  this  man",  and  Most.  182.  ita  tu  me  ames;  ita 
Philolaches  tuos  te  amet,  ut  venusta's. 

In  Phorm.  591,  where  quam  expresses  the  comparison,  the  para- 
tactic  origin  is  seen,  if  understood  as  follows :  quam  Phormio  est  cal- 
lidus!  ego  hominem  callidiorem  vidi  neminem. 

Atque  (ac),  originally  a  coordinate  conjunction,  acquired  the  force 
of  a  comparative  conjunction  in  sentences  like  Cic.  Orat.  II.  6,  24, 
non  dixi  secus  ac  szntiebam.  In  the  sentences  given  above,  however, 
the  copulative  force  can  still  be  felt,  e.  g.  Mil.  1251,  si  parem  sapien- 
tiam  habet  ac  formam,  "if  he  has  equal  wisdom  and  beauty".  The 
translation  of  this  sentence  in  A.  G.  Gram.  §  384,  N.  2,  "if  he  has 
sense  like  as  his  beauty",  is  based  on  the  false  supposition  that  ac 
already  had  acquired  the  meaning  of  than  in  all  sentences  of  this  class. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

CONCLUSION. 

In  summing  up  the  result  of  the  preceding  discussion,  it  can  be  said, 
that  the  relation  between  the  two  propositions  in  the  paratactic  sentence 
varies  from  absolute  independence  in  form  to  marked  indication  of 
the  hypothetic  nature  in  sentences  which  still  cannot  be  classed  as 
hypotactic.  That  is,  parataxis  includes  the  whole  field  which  lies 
between  coordination  on  the  one  hand  and  the  expression  of  subor- 
dinate relation  by  subordinating  conjunctions,  on  the  other. 

The  development  of  means  for  expressing  relation  proceeded  natu- 
rally. A  wish  or  an  exhortation  in  the  subjunctive,  joined  to  a  direct 
statement,  gradually  came  to  be  considered  subordinate  and  the  sub- 
junctive was  retained.  If  ut  or  ne  preceded  the  wish  or  the  exhorta- 
tion, these  were  retained  and  assumed  the  function  of  conjunctions. 
An  adverb  or  a  pronoun,  inserted  in  one  or  both  propositions,  often 
assumed  the  force  of  a  conjunction  by  a  similar  evolution.  Apparently 
insignificant  elements  influenced  the  development  this  way  or  that. 
Several  means  of  expressing  the  same  relation  often  came  into  use, 
as  connecting  words  which  earlier  had  differed  in  meaning  were  em- 
ployed for  the  expression  of  new  concepts. 


51 

In  a  formal  classification  of  parataxis,  therefore,  the  sentences  natu- 
rally fall  into  two  groups:  those  in  which  there  is  no  indication  in 
written  language  of  the  subordinate  relation,  and  those  in  which  the 
relation  of  the  clauses  is  suggested  by  the  language.  The  following 
scheme  will  make  this  clear. 

I.     Two  simple  sentences,  placed  side  by  side,  one  depending  on  the 
other,  but  with  no  indication  of  the  relation  in  written  language. 
1.     Eelation  expressed  by  musical  means. 

II.     Two  simple  sentences,  placed  side  by  side,  one  depending  on  the 
other,  in  which  the  relation  is  indicated  by  the  written  language. 

1.  Relation  suggested  by  the  tense  and  the  mood. 

2.  Eelation  suggested  by  the  position  of  the  simple  sentences. 

3.  Relation  suggested  by  ellipsis,  pleonasm,  and  prolepsis. 

4.  Relation  suggested  by  adverbs  or  pronouns  inserted  in 
one  or  both  simple  sentences. 

5.  Relation  suggested  by  the  position  and  meaning  of  the 
conjunction. 

It  is  not  my  intention  in  this  chapter  to  discuss  with  any  pretense 
at  completeness  this  wide  subject.  A  volume  might  well  be  devoted 
to  the  discussion,  in  each  class  of  subordinate  sentences,  of  the  means 
employed  in  spoken  and  written  language  to  indicate  subordination. 
The  fact,  however,  that  nothing,  so  far  as  I  know,  has  been  done  in 
this  branch  of  the  subject  except  the  discussions  of  Lindskog1)  makes 
it  undesirable  entirely  to  neglect  it  here. 

I.  In  the  early  grouping  of  apparently  independent  sentences,  the 
relation  was  indicated  by  musical  means.2)  Such  elements  as  pauses, 
accentuation,  rhythm,  and  pitch  were  certainly  employed  to  denote 
the  relation,  even  if  this  was  done  unconciously  on  the  part  of  the 
speaker.  A  sentence  like  amat:  sapit,  might,  therefore,  by  the  way 
it  was  uttered,  as  well  as  by  attendant  circumstances  of  the  conversa- 
tion, be  made  to  mean  either,  "he  loves,  for  he  is  wise;  he  loves, 
therefore  he  is  wise;  he  loves,  since  he  is  wise;  he  loves,  though  he 
is  wise;  he  loves,  if  he  is  wise",  etc.  Amat  can  similarly  be  made  the 
explanatory,  illative,  causal,  concessive,  conditional,  etc.,  clause,  viz., 
"he  is  wise,  for  he  loves",  etc.,  thus  doubling  the  possible  number  of 
relational  concepts.  This  factor  of  musical  means  has  been  too  much 
neglected  in  the  study  of  language,  partly  because  of  a  prevalent  notion 
that  only  those  elements  which  we  have  been  accustomed  to  indicate 
in  writing,  belong  to  language,  but  mostly  because  of  the  elusiveness 

1)  Quaest.  parts  II.  and  III.,  and  Beitrage  der  Satzstellung  im  Latein, 
passim.    To  his  discussions  I  am  partly  indebted  for  subclasses  2,  3,  and  5 

2)  See  Introd.  p.  10  and  11. 


52 

inherent  in  the  subject  which  makes  classification  difficult  if  not 
impossible.  If  stable  laws  governed  the  relation  of  concepts  and  vocal 
utterances,  then  a  causal  clause,  for  instance,  would  be  uttered  with 
the  same  timbre,  accent,  and  pitch  to-day,  as  it  was  two  thousand 
years  ago.  The  fact,  however,  is  that  this  relation  is  not  governed 
by  any  law.  It  is  rather  convention  that  is  the  ruling  element.  Each 
language  has  its  mode  of  expressing  these  relations,  and  this  varies 
with  time  and  culture.  Elements,  moreover,  which  in  some  languages 
are  left  to  the  vocal  organs  for  expression,  are  in  other  languages 
expressed  by  written  signs  as  particles  and  punctuation  marks.  Thus 
in  Greek  and  in  German,  for  example,  there  exist  many  words  which 
in  Latin  and  in  English  cannot  be  expressed  in  any  other  way  than 
by  musical  means.  The  absence  in  the  ancient  languages  of  punctua- 
tion marks  in  our  meaning  of  the  term  complicates  the  matter  still 
more.  In  determining  the  nature  of  these  paratactic  sentences  in 
Latin  we  are,  therefore,  practically  limited  to  the  attendant  circum- 
stances, i.  e.  the  context,  for  determination  of  the  meaning.  For 
numerous  paratactic  sentences  of  this  sort,  the  reader  is  referred  to 
the  preceding  chapters. 

II.  When  we  come  to  the  second  class  of  clauses,  in  which  the 
relation  is  suggested  by  the  language,  we  meet  a  number  of  elements 
which  are  more  tangible  than  those  described  above  but  which,  never- 
theless, though  they  may  suggest  the  relation,  do  not  always  make 
clear  its  nature.  The  following  five  subclasses  do  not  aim  to  include 
all  that  can  possibly  suggest  the  relation  in  paratactic  sentences,  but 
will  suffice  to  point  out  lines  along  which  further  work  can  be  done. 

1.  In  classical  times  there  had  been  established  an  almost  absolute 
usage  in  the  sequence  of  tenses  and  moods  in  subordinate  sentences.1) 
This  was,  however,  not  the  case  in  early  Latin.     When  two  inde- 
pendent sentences  were  joined,  as  for  instance  an  optative  or  volitive 
subjunctive  added  to  a  direct  statement,  each  sentence  retained  its 
original  tense  and  mood,  e.  g.  Men.  787,  quotiens  monstravi  tibi:  viro 
ut  morem  geras?    Bacch.  558,  die:  quis  est?    Rud.  156.  ubi  sunt  ei 
homines:  obsecro?     The  absence,  therefore,  of  strict  adherence  to 
classic  usage  is  often  an  indication  of  paratactic  origin.2) 

2.  From  the  examples  given  in  the  preceding  chapters  it  is  seen 
that  the  subordinate  clause  either  precedes  the  principal  statement,  or 
follows  it,  or  is  inserted  in  the  same.     This  is  evidently  not  without 
some  meaning.    In  the  early  paratactic  sentence  the  latter  proposition 

1)  Cf.  Kluge,  Die  consec.  temporum,  praef.  p.  VI.  et  al. 

2)  See  Lindskog,  Quaest,  pp.  88  ff. 


53 

obtains  its  position  from  the  logical  sequence  of  thought,  that  is,  the 
second  proposition  is  thought  last.1)  This  position  obtains  until  one 
proposition  is  felt  to  be  a  subordinate  part  of  the  sentence,  i.  e.  a  sub- 
ject, an  object,  or  an  adverbial  modifier.  When  this  stage  is  reached, the 
propositions  may  exchange  places  01  one  may  be  inserted.2)  Thus  con- 
ditional3) and  concessive  clauses  originally  preceded,  while  causal, 
final,  and  consecutive  followed  the  main  statements.  If  then  we  see 
in  the  paratactic  sentence  the  logical  order  retained,  the  nature  of  the 
relation  is  more  easily  understood. 

3.  Ellipsis, pleonasm, and  prolepsis  suggest  paratactic  origin  of  sub 
ordinate  clauses.    Ellipsis  is  characteristic  of  colloquial  language  and 
disappears  when  language  becomes  more  formal.    Thus  Eud.  1255,  ego 
tibi  daturus  nil  sum,  ne  tu  frustra  sis,  would  in  formal  language  be 
expressed,  ego  tibi  daturus  sum;  hoc  tibi  dico,  ne  tu  frustra  sis.    The 
elipsis  of  hoc  tibi  dico.  is  an  indication  of  the  original  independence 
of  the  two  clauses.    Pleonasm  and  prolepsis  has  similarly  been  shown 
to  originate  in  parataxis.    This  subject  has  been  well  treated  by  Lind- 
skog  in  Quaest.  pp.  64 — 88,  to  which  the  reader  is  referred. 

4.  A  pronoun  or  an  adverb  is  often  inserted  in  one  proposition  to 
direct  the  mind  to  a  word  or  a  phrase  in  the  other.  This  is  the  origin 
of  correlation  which  in  its  turn  is  often  the  stepping  stone  to  para- 
taxis.4)    The  following  sentences  will  serve  to  illustrate  this. 

A.     In  substantive  clauses.5) 

1)  Final, 

Heaut.  1048  seq.  mi  vir,  te  obsecro:  ne  facias. 

2)  Consecutive, 

Adelph.  500.  hoc  tu  facito  cum  animo  cogites. 

3)  Indirect  Question, 

Lucilius,  Sat.  IX,  338  seq.  M.  non  haec  quid  valeat,  quidve 
hoc  intersiet,  illud  cognoscis. 

4)  Indirect  Discourse, 

Phorm.  137.    unum  hoc  stio,  quod  fors  feret,  feremus  aequo 
animo. 


1)  Cf.  Lindskog,  Beitrdge  zur  Geschichte  der  Satzstellung,  p.  16,  "Wenn 
der  Nebensatz  das  logisch  vorangehende  1st,  1st  sein  Plntz  vor  dem  Haupt- 
satze;   1st  der  Nebensatz  das  logisch  nachfolgende,   1st  seln  Plats  hinter 
dem  Hauptsatze." 

2)  Cf.  Chapter  X.,  p.  47,  note  2. 

3)  nis/-clauses  followed  the  principal  clause,  see  Lindskog,  Beitr&g., 
p.  17. 

4)  See  p.  44  on  the  origin  of  si sic. 

5)  Lindskog,  Quaest.,  pp.  41  ff.  gives  examples  of  substantive  clauses 
only. 


54 

B.     Adverbial  clauses. 

1)  Final, 

Men.  331.    ibo  intro  et  dicam  te  hie  adstare  Erotio. 

2)  Consecutive, 

Most.  146,  ita  haec  tigna putent :  non  videor. 

3)  Causal, 

Andr.  937.    vix  sum  apud  me:  ita  animus  commotust  metu. 

4)  Temporal, 

Lucilius,  Sat.  V.  217,  M.  et  cum  id  mi  visus  facere  est,  turn 
retia  nexit. 

5)  Conditional, 

Livius  Andron.,  Achilles,  I.  1,  K.  si  malos  imitabo,  turn  tu 
pretium  pro  noxa  dabis. 

6)  Concessive, 

Most.  93  seq.,  atque  hoc  hand  videtur  veri  simile  vobis:  at  ego 
id  faciam  ita  esse  ut  credatis. 

7)  Eelative, 

Most.  983  seq.  unus  istic  seruos  est  sacerrumus  Tranio:  is 
vel  Herculi  conterere  quaestum  potest. 

8)  Comparative, 

Ep.  175.    quoius  quotiens  sepulchrum  vides:  sacruficas. 

These  illustrations  of  each  group  of  sentences  might  be  indefinitely 
prolonged.  They  offer  a  large  field  for  further  research.  Each  class 
of  dependent  clauses  could  be  studied  with  the  purpose  of  discovering 
just  what  part  these  adverbs  and  pronouns  have  played  in  the  de- 
velopment of  parataxis  to  hypotaxis. 

5.  The  relation  of  the  paratactic  sentences,  finally,  may  be  seen 
from  the  position  of  the  conjunction  and  by  its  original  meaning 
where  this  still  can  be  detected.  The  hypotactic  conjunction  has  de- 
veloped from  adverbs,  pronouns,  and  verbal  forms.  In  some  cases  these 
originally  belonged  to  the  proposition  that  became  subordinate,  in 
other  cases  to  the  principal  proposition.  In  still  other  instances  the 
conjunction  is  a  compound  formed  of  two  words  originally  found  in 
the  two  propositions.  Thus  ut  and  ne,  for  instance,  introduced  the 
clause  that  became  dependent,  while  the  conjunction  quod  in  substan- 
tive propositions  belonged  originally  to  the  principal  proposition. 1) 
Quasi  and  quamquam,  on  the  other  hand  are  compounds  (quam  -\-  si; 

1)  See  Zimmermann,  1.  c.  p.  13,  and  cf.  Paul,  Princ,  p.  251  " 'Ich 
sehe,  class  er  zuf rieden  1st',  ist  hervorgegangen  aus  einem :  'ich  sehe  das : 
er  ist  zuf  rieden' " ;  also  Erdmann,  Untersuch.  uber  die  synt.  der  Sprache 
Otfrids,  pp.  44  ff.  and  Lindskog  Quaest.  p.  61. 


55 

quam  -f-  quam),  the  parts  of  which  originally  belonged  to  the  two  pro- 
positions. It  is  evident  from  this  that  where  conjunctions  still  keep 
their  original  position  this  can  be  used  as  one  factor  in  determining 
paratactic  sentences. 

In  the  case  of  many  conjunctions  it  is  now  impossible  to  determine 
the  original  meaning.  The  meaning  of  several  is,  however,  quite 
certain.  The  conjunctions  si  (sic),  quamvis,  quasi,  licet  and  others, 
retained  their  early  meaning  longer  than  others,  so  that  in  the  sen- 
tences where  these  are  used  the  paratactic  origin  is  clearly  evident. 

In  this  last  chapter  merely  an  outline  has  been  given  of  a  subject 
which  by  itself  offers  a  field  for  many  treatises.  It  is  hoped,  however, 
that  this  rapid  survey  has  more  clearly  set  forth  the  principles  which 
have  guided  the  writer  in  the  preparation  of  the  main  portion  of  this 
dissertation. 


..i£?.9.U™J;RN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     000  737  992     8 


